>>> On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. One major reason is
>> the displacement range of x32 is -2G to +2G. It isn't a problem
>> for compiler since only small model is required for x32.
>>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> -ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
>
> Gaby writes:
>
>> Yes!
>
> Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
> subtraction
So it seems like we agreed that this is a problem that should be fixed.
Shall I create a bug report suggesting for it?
Am Friday, 12. August 2011, 09:32:11 schrieb Richard Guenther:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> >
> >
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I am working on 32-bit target with gcc 4.6.0. I need some help on the
> following:
>
> For my target, If my CCR register is set, all the arithmetic
> instructions update the CC register else the don't update.
> Setting the C
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Yes, that is mostly correct. The first could be done by -fweb (if the live
> range where the pseudo is equal to the constant is disjoint). The first
> could be done also by Jeff Law's project which can provide splitting not
> only on th
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Rohit Arul Raj
> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I am working on 32-bit target with gcc 4.6.0. I need some help on the
>> following:
>>
>> For my target, If my CCR register is set, all the arithmetic
>> instr
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. One major reason is
>>> the displacement range of x32 is -2G to +2G. It isn't a problem
>>
>>> On 12.08.11 at 14:09, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Hi,
It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. One major reason is
the displacemen
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 14:09, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It turns out that x32
>>> On 12.08.11 at 15:22, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.08.11 at 14:09, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu w
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 15:22, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.08.11 at 14:09, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 06:37, "H.J. Lu
On 08/12/2011 06:00 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Yes, that is mostly correct. The first could be done by -fweb (if the live
range where the pseudo is equal to the constant is disjoint). The first
could be done also by Jeff Law's project
Hello,
As the GSOC ending is approching, I tried on a real project (GNU Grub)
the plugin that I am developping.
This plugin allows the user to add warnings when compiling, depending of
rules that he has previously written. Here is an exemple of possible rules :
(testNull "grub_malloc")
T
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>
> Sorry, Paulo. I don't think it is a good idea to have such a general pass.
Thanks for the observation and the points you made. I understand and
agree that this should be sorted at the IRA level. What I might do in
the meantime is to im
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 16:47, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.08.11 at 16:02, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 15:22, "H.J. Lu"
On 12 August 2011 15:54, Pierre Vittet wrote:
>
> For the moment, the plugin has only be tested on C code, this might
> works with only few changes for C++.
Would your example tests for grub warn about the following C++ code?
struct Guard {
Guard(void* p) : p(p) { if (!p) throw std::bad_alloc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/12/11 04:00, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Vladimir Makarov
> wrote:
>> Yes, that is mostly correct. The first could be done by -fweb (if
>> the live range where the pseudo is equal to the constant is
>> disjoint). T
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 12.08.11 at 16:47, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 12.08.11 at 16:02, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Jan B
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:35:24PM +0200, Sven Verdoolaege wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 05:02:18PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>> > > +@item Integer Set Library (ISL) version 0.08
>> > > +
>>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 12.08.11 at 16:47, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 12.08.11 at 16:02, "H.J.
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:58:01PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Jed Davis wrote:
> > The existing workaround, which predates my personal involvement, is to
> > use -fPIE together with a -include'd file that uses a #pragma to set the
> > default symbol visibility to
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20110812 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20110812/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Rohit Arul Raj
> wrote:
> > Hello All,
> >
> > I am working on 32-bit target with gcc 4.6.0. I need some help on the
> > following:
> >
> > For my target, If my CCR register is set, all the arithmetic
> > instructions
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 04:26:06PM -0700, Jed Davis wrote:
> Thus, I'm trying to find the right solution. My current attempt is to
> add an -mno-plt flag in i386.opt, and add it to the list of reasons not
> to print "@PLT" after symbol names. This seems to work, although I've
> only done minimal
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> Assuming that you can indeed emit reasonable code for compares
> and conditional branches without the "CCR register" set to the
> do-not-update state, I'd suggest you implement that
Sorry for the miswrite
25 matches
Mail list logo
