How to test SH64 on a simulator

Hello, Is there a simulator for SH64 available? If so, how do I run the testsuite with it? I built a cross-compiler from AMD64 to sh64-unknown-elf and tried to test on sh-sim (with "make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim") but that doesn't work. Help? Ciao! Steven

Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

Hello, I would like to propose that support for Itanium1 be deprecated for GCC 4.4 and removed for GCC 4.5. I doubt there are many Itanium 1 machines left in use (production or even for hobbyists). The only Itanium1 that reached the market was the Merced, AFAIK. But only a few 1000s of these were

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to propose that support for Itanium1 be deprecated for > GCC 4.4 and removed for GCC 4.5. > > I doubt there are many Itanium 1 machines left in use (production or > even for hobbyists). The only Itanium1 that reached

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

Note that I do not propose to add this sort of substantial target-specific code change to my patch to remove deprecated targets/features (currently pending review for 4.5); I'll leave such removals to target maintainers (just as I did no

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > Note that I do not propose to add this sort of substantial target-specific > code change to my patch to remove deprecated targets/features > (currently > pending review for 4.5); I'l

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to propose that support for Itanium1 be deprecated for > GCC 4.4 and removed for GCC 4.5. ...and in case folks wonder why this comes up now: 1. Bootstrap with -mtune=itanium1 fails 2. Testing with a non-bootstrap

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)

NightStrike wrote: > What if GCC went back to stage 3 until the issue is resolved, thus > opening the door for a number of stage3-type patches that don't affect > 1) licensing and 2) plugin frameworks, but are merely bug fixes which > would have long been shaken out by now. It would be indeed nice

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote: > I doubt there are many Itanium 1 machines left in use (production or > even for hobbyists). The only Itanium1 that reached the market was the > Merced, AFAIK. But only a few 1000s of these were sold, in 2000/2001. > Most of them are probably not running

Re: Deprecating Itanium1 for GCC 4.4

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote: I can't find any test results in gcc-testresults reported with -mtune=itanium1 [1]. ...especially if theye do not even contribute test results or feedback when things are broken (as in this case). Deprecating Itanium

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)

On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > I think a change in the licence is against the gcc policy for stage 4: > it is neither a regression (no pr open stating it) nor a documentation > fix. Note that documentation changes don't need to be fixes in any GCC stage. (The license is close

Re: ARM compiler rewriting code to be longer and slower

Hi Zoltan, On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 9:16 AM, wrote: > Note that it is sub-optimal on two counts. > > First, each loading of a constant takes 3 instructions and 3 clocks. > Storing the constant and fetching it using an ldr also takes 3 clocks but > only two 32-bit words and identical constants n

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > NightStrike wrote: >> What if GCC went back to stage 3 until the issue is resolved, thus >> opening the door for a number of stage3-type patches that don't affect >> 1) licensing and 2) plugin frameworks, but are merely bug fixes which

Re: How to test SH64 on a simulator

Steven Bosscher wrote: > Is there a simulator for SH64 available? If so, how do I run the > testsuite with it? I built a cross-compiler from AMD64 to > sh64-unknown-elf and tried to test on sh-sim (with "make -k check > RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=sh-sim") but that doesn't work. Help? sh64-unkn

Re: ARM compiler rewriting code to be longer and slower

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > I'm not sure about the best way to fix this but I've filed this for > the moment as > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39468 This problem is reported every once in a while, all targets with small load-immediate instructi

Re: How to test SH64 on a simulator

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Kaz Kojima wrote: > sh64-unknown-elf-run will be there if sim was configured > for sh64-unknown-elf. Do I have to configure this explicitly? I just followed the instructions of http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html. If something special must be done for sh64, p

Re: How to test SH64 on a simulator

Steven Bosscher wrote: >> sh64-unknown-elf-run will be there if sim was configured >> for sh64-unknown-elf. > > Do I have to configure this explicitly? > > I just followed the instructions of > http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html. If something special must be > done for sh64, perhaps you coul

Re: ARM compiler rewriting code to be longer and slower

Steven Bosscher writes: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan > wrote: >> I'm not sure about the best way to fix this but I've filed this for >> the moment as >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39468 > > This problem is reported every once in a while, all targets

Re: help for arm avr bfin cris frv h8300 m68k mcore mmix pdp11 rs6000 sh vax

> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:07:04 +0100 > From: Paolo Bonzini > Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:34:49 +0100 > >> From: Paolo Bonzini > > > >> I would like to know whether for avr,bfin,cris,frv,h8300,pdp11,rs6000 > >> (which define SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED as 0) and for mco

improve -fverbose-asm option

Hello, I'd like to get more helpful information from the final .S file, such as basic block info, so that I can draw a cfg graph through a script. Perhaps the -fverbose-asm option is the right way to open this functionality. Here's a simple patch based on the current trunk svn. Index: gcc/final.c