On 2008-01-03 21:52:31 -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > See the new bug fixed in r5162 (for the 2.3 branch). mpfr_gamma on
> > -11.5 will give you -0 instead of +0.
>
> So I tried that, but mpfr_gamma on that value sets the global underflow
> fl
While I agree on the subject, I slightly disagree on the approach you took: The
added flags shouldn't go on the instructions, but on their operands (otherwise
you'll likely end up creating more special case code namely for movzx/movsx,
but perhaps also elsewhere): Just like for registers, memory
On Fri, Jan 04, 2008 at 08:09:44AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> While I agree on the subject, I slightly disagree on the approach you took:
> The added flags shouldn't go on the instructions, but on their operands
> (otherwise you'll likely end up creating more special case code namely for
> movz
Hello,
I have substantially completed an extension that would allow dumps to be
emitted as XML. I would like to contribute it to the FSF for inclusion in
the GCC distribution. Please let me know if there is interest in this.
Thanks,
Brian M. Ames
Further to my last email, I managed to get it to work with no runtime,
I've documented it as well, here:
http://www.archeia.com/article-1199444859.html
Luke.
On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 10:16 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> At http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/extensions.html we have a reference
> to the DLX port of GCC, which corresponds to the DLX machine described
> in "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach" by Hennessy and
> Patterson.
>
> Sadly,
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080104 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080104/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Currently, the prototype for __builtin_expect is
>
> long __builtin_expect (long expression, long constant);
>
> Extending it to functions would change it to
>
> T __builtin_expect (T expression, T expected);
Yes, it really makes more sense for __builtin_expe
