Hello,
A question on the stack/frame_tie circuitry for a ppc/V4_abi target, to
check about a potential remaining latent problem in this area.
With gcc 4.3, we had a case where the prologue generation emitted
a sequence like
(insn 191 190 192 9 t.adb:30:8 (set (reg:SI 25 25)
(mem/c:SI (pl
Hello All,
Even with the help of very nice people and of the gcc@ list, I am unable to
use git for GCC MELT with ease. I tried this entire week without success
My only issue is merging the trunk into GCC MELT but since this is something
I am doing several times a week, it makes me temporaril
Hi,
what are the exact semantics of __attribute__((const)), when attached to a C++
class constructor, supposed to be?
My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as return
value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor twice for the case of
e.g.
Foo a(1);
Foo b(1)
I have the following code:
foo.hh
==
class A
{
};
class foo
{
A a;
public:
void bar(A & aa);
};
foo.cc
==
#include "foo.hh"
void foo::bar(A & aa)
{
a = aa;
}
However the gimple generated via g++-4.5 -c -fdump-tree-gimple foo.cc
is this:
void foo::bar(A&) (struct foo * co
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are the exact semantics of __attribute__((const)), when attached to a C++
> class constructor, supposed to be?
>
> My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as return
> value, the compiler is free, instea
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 16:26:24 Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as
> > return value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor twice for
> > the case of e.g.
> > Foo
Google Summer of Code 2011 will start accepting applications from
mentoring organizations on 28/Feb. We have until 11/Mar to send our
application.
If you have ideas for projects for this year and/or would want to
serve as a mentor, please contact me.
Diego.
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:56, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Google Summer of Code 2011 will start accepting applications from
> mentoring organizations on 28/Feb. We have until 11/Mar to send our
> application.
>
> If you have ideas for projects for this year and/or would want to
> serve as a mentor, p
On 25/02/2011 15:20, Kyle Girard wrote:
> foo.hh
> ==
>
> class A
> {
> };
>
> class foo
> {
> A a;
> public:
> void bar(A & aa);
> };
>
>
> foo.cc
> ==
>
> #include "foo.hh"
>
> void foo::bar(A & aa)
> {
> a = aa;
> }
>
>
> However the gimple generated via g++-4.5 -c -fdum
On 25/02/2011 16:43, Matthias Kretz wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 16:26:24 Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as
return value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor t
On 25/02/2011 15:43, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> I fully understand why it happened. So I imply your answer is that ctors do
> not have a return value and my expectation, as explained above, is wrong.
You'd already know if ctors had return values, because you'd have had to be
writing return statem
Merged as of rev 170439. Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
Hi,
I don't generally disagree, that GCC does the correct thing here. I'm
completely satisfied if you don't change GCC.
I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if you are
not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well defined
"return value" is in th
On 25 February 2011 17:05, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if you are
> not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well defined
> "return value" is in the standards, to me as C++ developer the ctor acts as a
> function th
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 19:37:27 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 February 2011 17:05, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if
> > you are not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well
> > defined "return value" is in
> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to see
> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
I was hoping to see the assignment. My example might have been a little
too simple. Here's a slightly more complex example:
foo.hh
clas
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
>
>> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to see
>> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
>
>
> I was hoping to see the assignment. My example might have been a little
> too
Paul Koning schrieb:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is
less than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a
subreg write of less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
ie, if word_size is SImode and we
On 25/02/2011 19:21, Kyle Girard wrote:
> I was hoping to see the assignment.
> Looking at the gimple output there is no way to see that 'a' was
> assigned in bar(). So that it can be used in wik(). Am I
> misunderstanding something shouldn't there be a way to see the
> assignment in bar? Do I
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:33:58AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
> >
> >> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to
> >> see
> >> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
> >
> >
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 19:57 +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 25/02/2011 19:21, Kyle Girard wrote:
>
> > I was hoping to see the assignment.
>
> > Looking at the gimple output there is no way to see that 'a' was
> > assigned in bar(). So that it can be used in wik(). Am I
> > misunderstanding someth
> What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
> word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
> So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
> UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
--
Eric Botcazou
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
Thanks for that definite c
m32c-elf, gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/nested-1 at -O0,
produces this code:
_bar.1229:
enter #0
pushm r1,r2,r3,a0,a1
; end of prologue
mov.l a0,r3r1
add.l #-66,sp
stc sp,a1
. . .
ldc a1,sp
; start of epilogue
po
I am looking at an lto bug on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. If I compile
g++.dg/torture/pr33572.C with -flto on this platform I get:
ld: Unsatisfied symbol "__gcc_personality_v0" in file
/var/tmp//ccYlpGzO.ltrans0.ltrans.o
1 errors.
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
(This is using the HP linker which I
25 matches
Mail list logo
