On Thu, 29 Oct 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> Please test this MPC package and report back the results of running
> "make check" along with your target triplet, the compiler version you
> used, and the versions of gmp/mpfr used to compile it. You do not
> necessarily need to bootstrap mainline GCC
Hi,
It's hard to tell. The normal definition of tree_code is enum in
tree.h and it is an atomic type with respect GCC garbage collection.
But the names like gt_gcc_mx_tree_code suggest that GCC internals try
to treat it as a struct or some other non atomic type. Any chance
that your source does n
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" wrote:
> Please test this MPC package and report back the results of running
> "make check" along with your target triplet, the compiler version you
> used, and the versions of gmp/mpfr used to compile it. You do not
> necessarily need to bootstrap mainline GCC with this MPC, but
Hi,
Thanks a lot for the reply. No, I am not using any specific tree_code
definitions and I have included tree.h in the pass file.
I dont know if some code will help, but, this is what I am doing
gcc-svn/gcc/tree-boud.c
...
static GTY(( is_param(union tree_code) )) htab_t boud_ins = NULL;
...
#inc
> static GTY(( is_param(union tree_code) )) htab_t boud_ins = NULL;
Ah, now it's clear. You probably wanted "union tree_node" with n, not c, here.
--
Laurynas
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20091101 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20091101/
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/branches
At http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/#the_old_problems_file we have a short
list coming from the GCC 2 PROBLEMS file. Instead of carrying this
around forever, I am wondering whether we could quickly review these
and either remove (as not applicable any longer) or move to Bugzilla?
Possible special co
Possible special combination pattern: If the two
operands to a comparison die there and both come from insns that are
identical except for replacing one operand with the other, throw away
those insns. Ok if insns being discarded are known 1 to 1. An andl
#1 after a seq is 1 to 1
From: "Gerald Pfeifer"
===
All 57 tests passed
===
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2
gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD]
mpfr-2.4.1_1
(FWIW, on FreeBSD I have made MPC a hard requirement for the GCC 4.5
port already. I assume the next steps on your side are waiting fo
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
Possible special combination pattern: If the two
operands to a comparison die there and both come from insns that are
identical except for replacing one operand with the other, throw away
those insns. Ok if insns being discarded are known 1 to 1. An andl
#1
Quoting Joern Rennecke :
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
...
That would be:
clr r7
clr r8
...
move strict-low-part(r7), r0
...
move strict-low-part(r8), r1 --> could reuse r7
This is not implemented but IMHO obsolete, most of the targets will
just use an AND to implement zero extension.
If the tar
11 matches
Mail list logo