Hi,
Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Ludovic Courtès
> wrote:
[...]
>> What about writing it in C++? Function objects could be passed around
>> to achieve a similar result, at the expense of conciseness and
>> interoperability with C.
>
> Does not compute. If you
On Mar 19, 2012 5:56 AM, "Basile Starynkevitch" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 +
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > >
> > > * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management
> > > policy (and
> > > ref-counting
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 6:19 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> It seems that GCC has provided an API for registering plugins, but no
> API for the plugins to then actually use... Perhaps the C++ move would
> be alleviated by having an actually C API for plugins to use? I started
> writing a possible A
> On 03/09/2012 11:20 AM, Aurelien Buhrig wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems there is an issue around subreg:HI of PSI hardware register,
>> which occurs either during expand or reload (GCC 4.6.1).
>>
>> For my big endian target,
>> (subreg:HI (reg:PSI A0_REGNO) 0) is not representable but
>> (subreg:HI
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:57 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis skribis:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Ludovic Courtès
>> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> What about writing it in C++? Function objects could be passed around
>>> to achieve a similar result, at the expense of co
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 +
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> >
>> > * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management
>> > policy (and
>> > ref-countin
On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120314
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated
2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>
>> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120314
>>
>> and shortly its m
2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
> 2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
>> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>>
>>> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>>>
>>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.
Hi,
On 03/19/2012 01:38 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely:
2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
ftp://gcc.
2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
> 2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
>> 2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
>>> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
ft
On 03/18/2012 11:53 PM, Tomasz Borowik wrote:
> The perfect solution would be to shun away the standard model and
> actually support a kind of on-demand recompilation where the editor
> tells the compiler (running in background) what has changed and the
> compiler (having a function inlining map)
I am having problems with the avr target that has address space support for
memories that only support post-increment addressing.
However, the code runs on a bad assertion because cprop.c generates silly insn
notes:
cprop.c:try_replace_reg()
if (!rtx_equal_p (src, SET_SRC (set))
thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c -O0 (internal compiler error)
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c -O0 (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.c-tortu
On 19 March 2012 14:56, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html
>
> === gcc tests ===
>
>
> Running target unix
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c -O0 (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-ex
> On 19 March 2012 14:56, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>>
>> thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html
>>
>> === gcc tests ===
>>
>>
>> Running target unix
>> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c -O0 (internal compiler
>> error)
>> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/co
Hi,
Richard Guenther skribis:
> But no, I'm not volunteering (I'm volunteering to do the review work).
> The above has the same issue as the "we-want-to-be-more-like-LLVM"
> stuff - it lacks the people to actually implement it, and GCC at its
> present state still has to evolve, we can't and do
On 19 March 2012 15:30, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you should be able to do something like:
>>
>> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c
>>
>
> Thank you for the quick reply.
>
> Hr, tried that and didn't get very far probably because the
> srcdir
Hello,
For the interested reader, I eventually solved the nested function issue
by using either nested functions or C++11 lambdas, depending on whether
g++ is being used [0].
This is abstracted away by these (surprisingly not-too-ugly) macros to
define a local function, and declare a function par
2012/3/19 Ludovic Courtès :
> Hi,
>
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> But no, I'm not volunteering (I'm volunteering to do the review work).
>> The above has the same issue as the "we-want-to-be-more-like-LLVM"
>> stuff - it lacks the people to actually implement it, and GCC at its
>> present state
>> Hr, tried that and didn't get very far probably because the
>> srcdir is at ../gcc-4.6.3
>
> I don't think that's the problem.
>
> Maybe you need
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=limits-exprparen.c
> or
> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=*/limits-exprparen.c
> or some other variatio
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The rs6000 and cr16 backends and unwinding code have a define for the
> DWARF frame register for pre-GCC3 compatibility
> (PRE_GCC3_DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS):
>
> gcc/doc/tm.texi.in:@defmac PRE_GCC3_DWARF_FRAME_REGISTERS
> gcc/doc/
Hi,
I have builtin __function_size(foobar) that is applied to functions.
This should be folded to a symbol foobar@size.
The problem comes when I mark in the fold_builtin function in my backend
that DECL_PRESERVE(foobar) = 1;
The reason I need to do this is so that foobar is not removed if we
h
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Perhaps a more incremental approach could be taken. For instance, I
> would argue that changes to the tree and GIMPLE APIs could be made
> conservatively, on the grounds that they are most likely used by
> plug-ins out there.
Hmm, this
Dear All,
I want to design a new IPC(Inter Process Communication) for
Linux(Which can be extended for windows and mac also) as a project in
Google Summer of Code. It may change the traditional views of the IPCs
with its added features, security and extremely easy to use. All the
traditional IPCs ne
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:26:00 +
Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/18/2012 11:53 PM, Tomasz Borowik wrote:
>
> > The perfect solution would be to shun away the standard model and
> > actually support a kind of on-demand recompilation where the editor
> > tells the compiler (running in background) wh
Steven Bosscher schrieb:
Hi Johann,
You say you have:
src=
(mem/v/c:HI (post_inc:HI (const:HI (plus:HI (symbol_ref:HI ("V") [flags 0x402]
)
(const_int 1 [0x1] [3 V.i2+0 S2 A8 AS2])
while in cprop.c. That is your bug.
Where does the post_inc come from? They're not supposed
I have figured out what the root cause of pr52543, but i need some
advise as to how to fix it.
The bug only happens if the source or destination of the move is a hard
register. lower-subreg never breaks up pseudo to pseudo moves that are
larger than word mode. According to richard sandiford,
Hello,
In my transformation of an input program, I need to clone functions
and the callee functions in each clone. To clone a function, or
create a duplicate, I use "cgraph_function_versioning()" This works
perfectly well for the parent function. I then go through the
statements in the parent an
Hi,
I used gcc 4.8.0 to compile the piece of code:
#include
#include
void f( const int & i )
{
fprintf( stdout, "1 -> f( const int & i )-> %d\n", i );
}
void f( const int && i )
{
fprintf( stdout, "2 -> f( const int && i )-> %d\n", i );
}
void f( int & i )
{
fprintf( s
Kenneth Zadeck writes:
> I have figured out what the root cause of pr52543, but i need some
> advise as to how to fix it.
> The bug only happens if the source or destination of the move is a
> hard register. lower-subreg never breaks up pseudo to pseudo moves
> that are larger than word mode.
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> I have builtin __function_size(foobar) that is applied to functions.
> This should be folded to a symbol foobar@size.
>
> The problem comes when I mark in the fold_builtin function in my backend
> that DECL_PRESERVE(foobar) = 1;
>
> The reason I need to do this is so t
Subrata Biswas writes:
> I want to design a new IPC(Inter Process Communication) for
> Linux(Which can be extended for windows and mac also) as a project in
> Google Summer of Code.
This seems like an interesting project but it doesn't seem to be a
compiler project. It seems like a library. I
Tomasz Borowik writes:
> The most beneficial task (for me) would be to just bring the front-end
> I've already written up to mainline quality (though not necessarily
> inclusion), and in the process update some of the documentation or
> maybe even cleanup some gcc code.
I have nothing against ne
34 matches
Mail list logo
