>
> ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> YMM registers.
Yes, I know that xmm0 is lower part of ymm0. I still think we ought to
be able to support varargs that do save ymm0 registers only when ymm
values a
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
>>> >Sure if it works, we should be lowering the types during gimplification
>>> >so we don't need to store all this in memory
Hello,
Working with putting together a Linux installer for an app (to work on
various Linux
versions), I got problems with libgcc_s.so (if distribution is not
based on gcc 4.x the app
won't start).
I wanted to remove dynamic linking to any C++ library (that is outside
of the installer).
The situ
6/6/2008, "Arne Steinarson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>The shared libraries themselves still
>have a dependency on libgcc_s.so:
>
> $ ldd libwx_gtk2ud_fwb_core-2.9.so.0 | grep gcc
> libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb6ee8000)
you can use the -nodefaultlibs and manually add what yo
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> > of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> > YMM registers.
>
>
> Yes, I know that xmm0 is lower part of ymm0. I still think we ought to
>
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
> > > of xmm0. I am not sure if we need separate XMM registers from
> > > YMM registers.
> >
> >
> > Y
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ymm0 and xmm0 are the same register. xmm0 is the lower 128bit
>> > > of xmm0. I am not sure if
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:34AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > ymm0 and xmm0
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:40 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:28 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 06:50:26AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06,
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:31:12AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 1. Extend the register save area to put upper 128bit at the end.
> Pros:
> Aligned access.
> Save stack space if 256bit registers are used.
> Cons
> Split access. Require more split access beyond 256bit.
>
> 2. Extend the r
>>The shared libraries themselves still
>>have a dependency on libgcc_s.so:
>>
>> $ ldd libwx_gtk2ud_fwb_core-2.9.so.0 | grep gcc
>> libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 (0xb6ee8000)
>
>you can use the -nodefaultlibs and manually add what you want.
>e.g. you can link a static stlport with stat
Hi all,
I was wondering if there is a configuration parameter for gcc that would
prevent it from using an assembler and linker. I have a port of
gcc 4.0.2 for an experimental architecture and I have my own assembler
and linker. Currently I am compiling gcc with binutils compiled for MIPS
but re
I want to point out that the current implementation of lto is not
compatible with "ln -r", and will need to be modified to support
"cherry picking" the function bodies.
In the current implementation, each lto section (such as what holds
a function body or the streamed information from an ipa pass
> I want to point out that the current implementation of lto is not
> compatible with "ln -r", and will need to be modified to support
> "cherry picking" the function bodies.
I assume you mean "ld -r", right ?
Arno
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
I want to point out that the current implementation of lto is not
compatible with "ln -r", and will need to be modified to support
"cherry picking" the function bodies.
I assume you mean "ld -r", right ?
Arno
yes, of course. Dennis Richie's curse: two letter comm
Status
==
The GCC 4.3 branch is now again open for commits under normal release
branch rules.
GCC 4.3.1 has been tagged, tarballs and diffs are on gcc.gnu.org and
so far partly on ftp.gnu.org. The announcement will go out after the
weekend to let mirrors sync it up.
We got quite a lot of ne
> 2) LTO sections need to be able to find "their index" of decls and
> types. By "their index" I mean the index that each section used to
> reference the decls and types when the section was generated.
Can't you just put an ELF symbol (can be an unnamed local -- could
even just be a section sy
Cary Coutant wrote:
2) LTO sections need to be able to find "their index" of decls and
types. By "their index" I mean the index that each section used to
reference the decls and types when the section was generated.
Can't you just put an ELF symbol (can be an unnamed local -- could
eve
> I think that one of the goals here is to not make that too dependent on elf.
> For instance, we are in the process of getting rid of all of the dwarf.
> After maddox does that, our only dependence on elf will be as a container
> to hold all of the sections.
> Given that gcc is not always an elf
Yep, my request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] just bounced, so I will live with a random
number.
Thanks,
Stephen
- Original Message
From: Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stephen Andieta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 7:44:30 AM
Subject: Re: How to
Let me second H.J.'s suggestion to post your request at
http://groups.google.com/group/generic-abi
In the absence of any SCO presence, that group now serves as the
closest thing we have to a standards forum for ELF and the gABI.
-cary
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080606 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080606/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Stephen Andieta wrote:
> Yep, my request to [EMAIL PROTECTED] just bounced, so I will live
> with a random number.
caldera.com doesn't have an MX record whereas sco.com does, so maybe it's
a problem with that old domain. Try Dave Prosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> directly
-
he
I'm suggesting that there's no big difference between unsigned char and
unsigned int (and unsigned long...) in this case, and, therefore
compiler's behaviour should be consistent.
But there is a difference.
When "x" is an unsigned int, the expression "x < 0" is equivalent to
(unsigned i
Hello all,
The 16bit target that i am porting to gcc4.1.2 doesn't have any
instructions for 32bit operations. But for addition and subtraction
there is
addc
subc
instructions that consider carry bit also. Presently i have patterns
for SImode addition and subtraction such that the template will hav
25 matches
Mail list logo
