[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24/09/2007 09:19:09:
> Hi All,
>
> I wanted to install gcc-3.4 on my ppc-linux m/c. I tried cross
> compiling, but cought up with error which i'm not familiar with as i'm
> new here.
GCC list is about development of GCC so I think you should try the
gcc-help mailing l
Hi I want to extract the complete AST-tree from GCC (using 4.1.2).
I´ve tried to use -fdump-translation-unit but it seems like its dosent
include information in ex. for and if statements. If i use
-fdump-tree-orignal-raw i get each function but not the external variables
if they are not used in the
We are portinng GCC 4.2.1 to a 2-issue VLIW processor. There are some
special instructions which can only be issued on the second slot (slot
1). I tried to specify using following DFA constructs.
;; Define this instruction can only be issued on slot 1
(define_insn_reservation "psr_y" 1
(eq_at
On 9/24/07, Johan Bohlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My question is... Anyone knows a way
> to get all information ? Maybe changing a flag in the source code or
> something.
Debugging dumps are always incomplete. Mostly by design, but in
general because we just dump what seems useful for debugg
On 9/23/07, Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The operand, op:
>
> (gdb) p op
> $49 = 0x2e1ebc60
> (gdb) pt
>
Perhaps you could also try
-fdump-tree-gimple
or
-fdump-tree-gimple-raw
In both cases you dump out the GIMPLE form, AST based.
Best,
T.
> Hi I want to extract the complete AST-tree from GCC (using 4.1.2).
> I´ve tried to use -fdump-translation-unit but it seems like its dosent
> include inform
On 20/09/2007, Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can't seem to decide whether ISO C++ really forbids comparisons
> between pointers and integers or not. The first two are for == and !=,
> the second two are for <, >, <=, >=. Why the inconsistency?
>
> typeck.c: error ("ISO C++ f
On 24/09/2007, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > And *before* salias? Does it make a difference? It suits me better for
> > my purposes.
>
> Can't do it before salias.
>
> I didn't want to add a dummy pass mainly because i
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't understand is why PROPerties are not associated with TODO_
> functions in a way that if a pass don't have the properties it
> requires, it can call the appropriate TODO_ function. That way, if
> some pass needs PROP_alias but non
On 24/09/2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand is why PROPerties are not associated with TODO_
> > functions in a way that if a pass don't have the properties it
> > requires, it can call the appropriate
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't get it. If you ask for PROP_alias and aliases have been
> computed, then PROP_alias is enabled and you don't need to compute
> them again.
You do if alias information has gone stale due to transformations.
The SSA form is anothe
On 24/09/2007, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I don't get it. If you ask for PROP_alias and aliases have been
> > computed, then PROP_alias is enabled and you don't need to compute
> > them again.
>
> You do if alias infor
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then
> the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the
> relevant function to enable it again. Is that a problem?
In principle, I don't think that'd be a
On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 24/09/2007, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > And *before* salias? Does it make a difference? It suits me better for
> > > my purposes.
> >
> > Can't do
On 9/24/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/24/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That is exactly what I had in mind. If you invalidate a property then
> > the property is destroyed and whoever asks for it must invoke the
> > relevant function to enable it agai
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:36:25AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The operand, op:
> >
> > (gdb) p op
> > $49 = 0x2e1ebc60
> > (gdb) pt
> >
> This symbol was not marked for renaming and the program is already in
> SSA form. When your p
Diego, a bit more info. It seems that gimplify_operand
is being called in the rewrite_uses pass of
tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c. gimplify_operand() is working
on this expr:
unit size
align 32 symtab 0 alias set -1 precision 32 min max >
constant invariant
arg 0
c
On 9/24/07, Gary Funck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would have thought gimplify_expr's internal mechanisms would
> mark veriables as referenced, when it needs to?
No, it doesn't. It simply converts to GIMPLE. Once you inserted the
new statement, you will need to call mark_symbols_for_renaming
"Bingfeng Mei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We are portinng GCC 4.2.1 to a 2-issue VLIW processor. There are some
> special instructions which can only be issued on the second slot (slot
> 1). I tried to specify using following DFA constructs.
>
> ;; Define this instruction can only be issued o
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but the c99-tgmath-* tests
are failing on most newlib targets. The problem is that tgmath.h
unconditionally includes complex.h, which non-linux newlibs don't
provide. What's the best fix? Including complex.h from tgmath.h
seems reasonable on the face of i
On 24/09/2007, Jonathan Adamczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What about something like the following?
>
> struct proxy {
> T& t;
> proxy(T& t_) : t(t_) {}
> proxy& operator=(const T& r) { foo(t, r); return *this; }
> };
>
> struct B { proxy get() { return proxy(bar); } };
>
> int
ÎâêØ wrote:
(define_insn "*shift_predicate_cmp"
[(set (const_int 0)
(and:BI (and:BI (match_operand:BI 1 "register_operand" "c")
(and:BI (match_operand:DI 2 "gr_reg_or_8bit_adjusted_operand" "rL")
(match_operand:DI 3 "gr_register_operand" "r")))
(ma
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070924 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070924/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
This affects parisc all hpux versions except for possibly 11.31. I've
experimented with not including complex.h. With a couple of other
testsuite changes (complex -> __complex__), the tgmath tests behave
in a semi-reasonable manner if complex arguments are avoided. However,
I don't really see an
I'm trying to get libfortran (all_l4.c) building for m32c, and it
complains (eventually) that it can't add PSI (pointer) and HI
(integer) types together. I've backtracked to the statement just
before it's lowered to rtl, see below. Note that pointers are PSI
mode (24 bits) for this chip. My que
25 matches
Mail list logo
