On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Nikhil Patil wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Nikhil Patil
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> 1. Which passes of gcc make use of points-to information in
>>> SSA_NAME_PTR_INFO (or more precisely, pt_s
I am facing several issues with the current hash_table API while
trying to improve what is currently the scev_info_hash_table_type
in tree-scalar-evolution.c. The issues with that hashtable are
1) it allocates GC memory for the entries but their lifetime
is short (call of instantiate_scev /
Hello,
I'm figuring out the code in
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/include/stddef.h,
and I saw the macro switch below:
#if defined (__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD__ >= 5)
#include
#endif
I have gone through all the 、 and
source files for the whole 5.X.X version of
FreeBSD, and still can'
On 05/01/2013 02:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
I had a go at writing a custom pass to try to locate places where GCC
makes use of global state.
You can see the pass here (which I implemented using gcc-python-plugin):
https://gcc-python-plugin.readthedocs.org/en/latest/working-with-c.html#finding-g
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Nikhil Patil
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Nikhil Patil
>>> wrote:
Hello,
1. Which passes of gcc make use of poin
On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 12:38 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-05-02 at 07:20 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/01/2013 02:32 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > I had a go at writing a custom pass to try to locate places where GCC
> > > makes use of global state.
> > >
> > > You can see the pass
This issue of naked function attribute support for Mips has come up in
the context of LLVM and in regards to maintaining compatibility with gcc.
It's my understanding that the idea of the naked function attribute was
rejected for gcc Mips.
I'm curious as to why.
For LLVM it basically works j
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20130502 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20130502/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement
between various
gcc compilers.
On 05/02/2013 03:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement
between various
gcc compilers.
Sorry. This was meant to be a question.
Should a return statement be
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM, reed kotler wrote:
> This issue of naked function attribute support for Mips has come up in the
> context of LLVM and in regards to maintaining compatibility with gcc.
>
> It's my understanding that the idea of the naked function attribute was
> rejected for gcc Mip
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM, reed kotler wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 03:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>>
>> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
>> attribute.
>>
>> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
>> various
>> gcc compilers.
>>
On 05/02/2013 04:13 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM, reed kotler wrote:
This issue of naked function attribute support for Mips has come up in the
context of LLVM and in regards to maintaining compatibility with gcc.
It's my understanding that the idea of the naked func
On 05/02/2013 04:16 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:46 PM, reed kotler wrote:
On 05/02/2013 03:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
> attribute.
I vote yes.
> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
> various
> gcc compilers.
Which targets do not generate a return instr
2013/5/3 reed kotler :
> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
> attribute.
>
> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
> various
> gcc compilers.
>
IMHO, it depends on how you define the word 'naked' for a function
and how you expe
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Zachary Jude wrote:
>
> I'm figuring out the code in
>
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.1/include/stddef.h,
>
> and I saw the macro switch below:
>
> #if defined (__FreeBSD__) && (__FreeBSD__ >= 5)
> #include
> #endif
>
> I have gone through all the 、 and
>
On 05/02/2013 07:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
I vote yes.
why would you want that? naked functions are just inline asm.
you can generate your own return statem
2013/5/3 reed kotler :
> This issue of naked function attribute support for Mips has come up in the
> context of LLVM and in regards to maintaining compatibility with gcc.
>
> It's my understanding that the idea of the naked function attribute was
> rejected for gcc Mips.
>
> I'm curious as to why.
On 05/02/2013 08:41 PM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
2013/5/3 reed kotler :
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
various
gcc compilers.
IMHO, it depends on how you define the word 'nake
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM, reed kotler wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 07:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
>>>
>>> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
>>> attribute.
>>
>> I vote yes.
>
> why would you want that?
On 05/02/2013 09:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 8:59 PM, reed kotler wrote:
On 05/02/2013 07:54 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:44 PM, reed kotler wrote:
Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
attribute.
I vote yes.
On May 3, 2013, at 00:15, reed kotler wrote:
> There was some confusion on the llvm list because some tests were run on
> targets that did not support the naked attribute.
>
> I think we are thinking now that the return statement should not be emitted
> unless explicitly requested.
>
> It's
23 matches
Mail list logo
