Re: [PATCH][RFC] Gimplify unit-at-a-time (again)

Richard Guenther wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> Jan Hubicka wrote: Running target unix/ FAIL: StackTrace2 output - source compiled test FAIL: StackTrace2 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test FAIL: StackTrace2 -O3 output - source compiled tes

Re: [PATCH][RFC] Gimplify unit-at-a-time (again)

Andrew Haley wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Andrew Haley wrote: >> >>> Jan Hubicka wrote: > Running target unix/ > FAIL: StackTrace2 output - source compiled test > FAIL: StackTrace2 -findirect-dispatch output - source compiled test > FAIL: StackTrace2 -O3

Re: i370 port

Paul Edwards wrote: > I then found out that even with old versions of the machine definition, > I can have the warning removed by simply not defining CONST_INT > in the PREDICATE_CODES, even though it is allowed when the > function is called. ie it seems to have no effect on the code > generation

Pre and post increment

Hello, Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments: //code begin #include main () { int a; a=1; printf ("1. %d %d\n", ++a, a); // 1. 2 2 a=1; printf ("2. %d %d\n", a, a++)

Re: Pre and post increment

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:30 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments: Try using -Wsequence-point. With that option GCC produces: t.c:6: warning: operation on 'a' may be undefined (and many warnings of the same wording for every line afterwa

Re: Pre and post increment

Hello Andrew, Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output. Question: Did you expect different output too? Thanks Quo ting Andrew Pinski : > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:30 AM, wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments: > > Try

Re: Pre and post increment

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output. > > Question: Did you expect different output too? Oh the warnings are telling you, your code is undefined. -- Pinski PS gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org is a better mailing list for these t

Re: Pre and post increment

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM, wrote: > Hello, > > Here is a program with output in gcc (4.3.2) on pre and post increments: > > //code begin > #include > > main () { >    int a; >    a=1; printf ("1. %d %d\n", ++a, a);            

Re: Pre and post increment

2009/7/20 : > Hello Andrew, > > Thanks for your suggestion, but no difference in output. > > Question: Did you expect different output too? Not really. Although it may occur with different compiler versions or flags. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_point and http://c-faq.com/expr/seqpo

Re: Pre and post increment

As the C specification document specifies in section 6.5.2.2 point no 10: The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is unspecified, but there is a sequence point before the actual call. Therefore if in any function cal

Re: Pre and post increment

Zachary Turner writes: > So if a=5 before a function call, then foo(++a, ++a), might invoke > foo(6, 6), foo(6, 7), or foo(7, 6). Or even foo(42, 666). Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for somet

Re: Pre and post increment

Andreas Schwab wrote: > Zachary Turner writes: > >> So if a=5 before a function call, then foo(++a, ++a), might invoke >> foo(6, 6), foo(6, 7), or foo(7, 6). > > Or even foo(42, 666). Or demons might fly out of your nose. Andrew.

default library search path for native *-w64-mingw32 builds is broken somehow

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I try to build native i686-w64-mingw32 and x86_64-w64-mingw32 configurations. I have working cross configurations for both and the on stage builds succeed without issues. But the built compilers have broken default library search pathes. For the x86_

Running a Single GCC Test Case

Hi, Is there a way to run a single test from the GCC test suite under gcc/testsuite? I could not find the answer in http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html and the google searches I tried did not yield anything useful. More specifically, if I want to run a test case like "gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i

Re: Running a Single GCC Test Case

2009/7/21 Shobaki, Ghassan : > Hi, > > Is there a way to run a single test from the GCC test suite under > gcc/testsuite? > I could not find the answer in > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html and the google searches I tried did > not yield anything useful. It is written in that page, although it

Changing the order when generating a spill address

Hi there. The port that I'm working on has pointer registers backed by a cache. It's unusual as the cache changes immediately when the pointer register is modified instead of later when it is deferenced. This means that it is cheaper to copy a base address into the pointer register, then add the

Re: Pre and post increment

1. It is wise then to insure that the final value of an expression is ascertained upfront before it is being used in a function call as an argument. I suppose this is applicable in all cases of expressions and not limited to pre and post increments, although, pre and post is where there is likely

Re: Pre and post increment

i...@adari.net writes: > 1. It is wise then to insure that the final value of an expression is > ascertained upfront before it is being used in a function call as an > argument. I suppose this is applicable in all cases of expressions > and not limited to pre and post increments, although, pre an

Re: updating autotools status

Hello Benjamin, sorry for the delay, I've been traveling. * Benjamin Kosnik wrote on Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 09:17:46PM CEST: > > Hey Ralf! Saw your message about updating gcc/src to current auto > tools, in favor. But, it looks like the autoconf 2.64 release is not > out, last I see is 2.63b at th