On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2012 02:58 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius
> > wrote:
> > > On 03/02/2012 02:44 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
> > >
On 03/05/2012 10:12 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, 3 Mar 2012, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2012 02:58 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
On 03/02/2012 02:44 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Arnaldo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>> On 02/17/2012 08:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 19:17 -0400, Arnaldo wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on an extension to the Graphite pass
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Arnaldo wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Arnaldo wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Tobias Grosser wrote:
>>> On 02/17/2012 08:34 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 19:17 -0400, Arnaldo wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>>>
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
> I couldn't get cfgexpand.c:basic_block expand_gimple_basic_block
> (basic_block bb) to work by calling it directly because there is some
> preprocessing in gimple_expand_cfg() that has to be done first. But
> calling gimple_expand_cfg() modifies the CF
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
>
>> I couldn't get cfgexpand.c:basic_block expand_gimple_basic_block
>> (basic_block bb) to work by calling it directly because there is some
>> preprocessing in gimple_expand_cfg() that has to be do
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Arnaldo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't get cfgexpand.c:basic_block expand_gimple_basic_block
>>> (basic_block bb) to work by calling it directly because there is some
>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Arnaldo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
>>
>>> I couldn't get cfgexpand.c:basic_block expand_gimple_basic_block
>>> (basic_block bb) to work by calling it directly because there is some
>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Arnaldo wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
>>>
I couldn't get cfgexpand.c:basic_block expand_gimple_basic_block
(basic
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Arnaldo wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:17 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Arnaldo wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Arnaldo wrote:
> I couldn't get cfge
I'm enhancing the out-of-tree msp430 back end to support the 20-bit
extended registers of the 430X CPU. I'd like to do this using a
native type rather than special-casing its use in addresses. It seems
the best approach is to use PSImode, since the values are 20 bits when
in a register, and 32 bi
On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
> before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
> general-purpose 20-bit integral type in gcc?
If you're using 4.7.0, it should be possible to use FRACTIONAL_INT_MODE
and g
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
>> before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
>> general-purpose 20-bit integral type in gcc?
>
> If you're usin
On 03/05/12 09:01, Rainer Orth wrote:
This is where I need explicit approval and/or guidance:
* There are some fixincludes hacks that from their names seem to be
osf-specific, but are not restricted to alpha*-dec-osf*. Bruce,
what's the best way to handle those? Disable them e.g. with a
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
>> before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
>> general-purpose 20-bit integral type in gcc?
>
> If you're using 4.7.0, it should be possible to
Bruce Korb writes:
> On 03/05/12 09:01, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> This is where I need explicit approval and/or guidance:
>>
>> * There are some fixincludes hacks that from their names seem to be
>>osf-specific, but are not restricted to alpha*-dec-osf*. Bruce,
>>what's the best way to handl
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN
17 matches
Mail list logo
