Hello,
I'm trying to express the instruction latency time constraints of a private
processor.
* Overview :
Two cycles are necessary between a comparison instruction and a conditionnal
jump instruction (GSR is updated 2 cycles after comparison).
If nothing better than 'nop' can be used betwee
On 10/07/2011 04:06 AM, Bereznojs Anatoiijs wrote:
Čau, čau!
Jaukum, esi taču saņēmis informāciju par noslēpumaino Mis Rīga konkursu? Pat,
ja neesi informēts, nekas!
Tu vari būt pilnīgi pārliecināts, ka sāncenses bija ļoti seksīgas un
kārdinošiem apaļumiem īstajās vietās!
Ja gribi viņas sati
On 10/07/11 09:50, BELBACHIR Selim wrote:
> (asm result)
>
> load d($C2),$R1 <--1st operand for comparison ctrl,readmem,nothing
> loadi 0,$C4 <- 2nd operand for comparison ctrl,nothing
> load d($C2+4),$R2 <--no data dependancies ctrl,readmem,nothing
> cmp $C4,$R1
Em 07-10-2011 02:35, Miles Bader escreveu:
> Pedro Pedruzzi writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> bool overflowbit2(unsigned int a, unsigned int b)
>>> {
>>> const unsigned int sum = a + b;
>>> return ~(a ^ b) & sum & 0x80;
>>> }
>
2011/10/7 Pedro Pedruzzi :
> It is. For example -100 + -100 = -200 (less than INT8_MIN; does not
> fit). But -1 + -1 = -2, is ok.
Ah, now I see...
-miles
--
Cat is power. Cat is peace.
After some discussions and further coding, the external library has been
refined.
I've updated the document at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/LIbrary
In a nutshell, the changes are:
1 - generic routines
=
The generic version routines for arbitrary sized objects were
unimplem
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ulf Magnusson:
>
>> I've been experimenting with different methods for emulating the
>> signed overflow of an 8-bit CPU. The method I've found that seems to
>> generate the most efficient code on both ARM and x86 is
>>
>> bool overflow(uns
* Ulf Magnusson:
> Are you thinking of something like this?
>
> bool overflow_bit2(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
> const unsigned int ashift = a << 24;
> const unsigned int bshift = b << 24;
> const unsigned int sum = a + b;
> return (int)(~(a ^ b) & (a ^ sum)) < 0;
> }
Yes, b
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Ulf Magnusson:
>
>> Are you thinking of something like this?
>>
>> bool overflow_bit2(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) {
>> const unsigned int ashift = a << 24;
>> const unsigned int bshift = b << 24;
>> const unsigned int sum =
* Ulf Magnusson:
> Good machine code would be fun to see, though I might need to brush up
> on my ARM.
It turns out that ARM doesn't seem to have 8-bit overflow detection,
so something like this has to be used (with the arguments in R1 and
R2, result in the lower bit of R3):
MOVR3, R1, LS
I just noted at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 (due to
std::list), that it's currently impossible to use any C++11-compiled code
in a program which also uses any C++98 code, even if the two pieces of
code never actually touch each other or share objects. After I noted that,
paolo
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20111007 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20111007/
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 7 October 2011 23:24, James Y Knight wrote:
> I just noted at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49561 (due to
> std::list), that it's currently impossible to use any C++11-compiled code
> in a program which also uses any C++98 code, even if the two pieces of
> code never actually touch
P.S. we already document how to link applications using two
incompatible versions of libstdc++:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html#abi.testing.multi
(whether you can actually make that work in practice is another matter!)
The situation is similar for C++98 and C++11 code, if
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
> unless there are no objects compiled with c++98 linked into the same
> executable.
I was und
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
> unless there are no objects compiled with c++98 linked into the same
> executable.
Gabriel
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>
>> I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
>> unless there are no objects compiled w
FWIW, I seem to have no obvious problems compiling with -std=c++0x,
and then linking with system c++ libraries that were presumably
compiled using default options (e.g., I use the OpenEXR library,
which is C++)
So if there are incompatibilities, they don't seem to be fatal...
-Miles
--
Hers
Hi all,
I know you people are very busy but please go through this. It is
about Heapless C/C++.
What is heapless C++?
Heapless C++ is the concept in which you are forbidden to use heap of system.
Why heapless C++?
Because:
1. Stack is addressed by SP (stack pointer) which is a register of CPU
an
19 matches
Mail list logo
