On 02/15/2012 07:07 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/14/2012 06:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Sebastian Huber writes:
On 02/14/2012 04:05 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Sebastian Huber writes:
[...]
I would recommend that RTEMS change to the ARM EABI if possible. That
is the current standard A
On 2012-02-14 17:04:52 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/14/2012 04:54 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 14, 2012, at 11:44, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> >> On 02/14/2012 04:41 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
> >>> Right now we don't have a library either that conforms to C99
> >>
> >> Are you sure? As
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Christoph Lauter
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> first of all, let me apologize for my late answer to this very exciting
> email thread.
>
> As pointed out several times, the current libm suffers from several
> disadvantages:
>
> * The current libm code is a mix of codes comin
On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 04:53 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > My view is that we should have a "GNU libm" project whose purpose is not
> > to install a library directly but to provide functions for use in other
> > projects (much like gnulib, but the functions coul
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Christoph Lauter wrote:
> As a matter of course, we'd be more than happy to get your input (and even
> guidance w.r.t. copyright management and coding conventions) on and during
> that project.
* GNU projects do not automatically need copyright assignments to the FSF
(some d
This is a question on SUBREGs generated by lower-subreg.c and whether register
allocator is supposed to handle them efficiently.
Suppose the following small function compiled for AVR.
Remember AVR is 8-bit machine with int = HImode and UNITS_PER_WORD = 1.
int add (int val)
{
return val + 1;
}
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 08:26:06PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
> >>>Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must
> >>>be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released.
> >>>
> >>>It's extremely unfortunate that this wil
Sebastian Huber writes:
> I mean the ABI described in "Procedure Call Standard for the ARM
> Architecture" document number "ARM IHI 0042D, current through ABI
> release 2.08". In GCC this is ARM_ABI_AAPCS and ARM_ABI_AAPCS_LINUX?
That is my understanding, yes.
> This is not hacking. It is ma
On 02/15/2012 09:30 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> But to be absolutely clear, glibc's libm doesn't have a problem
>> > meeting C99, AFAIK.
> That's not quite correct. It is completely broken in directed
> rounding modes (up to crashes).
Eh? C99 doesn't require directed rounding modes. I'll grant
On 02/15/2012 09:21 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
This is a question on SUBREGs generated by lower-subreg.c and whether register
allocator is supposed to handle them efficiently.
Suppose the following small function compiled for AVR.
Remember AVR is 8-bit machine with int = HImode and UNITS_PER_WO
I'm showing my ignorance here, but couldn't find an example of something
similar on another RISCy target, so here goes...
My latest round of testing showed these failures for MIPS16:
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stod.cc execution test
FAIL: 21_strings/basic_string/numeri
Please consider the following patch:
--- o/INSTALL/README2010-03-22 14:56:56.0 +0100
+++ INSTALL/README 2012-02-15 19:30:09.416537896 +0100
@@ -4,3 +4,4 @@
gcc/doc/install.texi and copied into this directory.
To read this documentation, please point your HTML browser to "index
On 02/15/2012 11:53 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> We then trip:
>
> /* Don't let us unwind past the handler context. */
> gcc_assert (!match_handler);
>
> in _Unwind_RaiseException_Phase2. What's the right thing to do here?
>
Ug. The Right Thing is to fix the unwinder so that it
On 02/15/2012 03:24 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 08:26:06PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must
be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released.
It's extremely
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, Samuel Bronson wrote:
>
>> ... Notice how the one in invoke.texi has an additional invariant
>> section? What's up with this?
>
> It looks like Ralf's 2008-07-30 commit (r138293) omitted to change
> invoke.texi.
That w
15 matches
Mail list logo
