Re: Failure bootstrapping GCC trunk on Cygwin

2013-06-05 Thread Angelo Graziosi
The following simple patch allow for the bootstrap to be completed: --- gcc-trunk-r199624/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c~ 2013-05-30 03:26:05.0 +0200 +++ gcc-trunk-r199624/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c 2013-06-04 19:24:49.140625000 +0200 @@ -480,7 +480,7 @@ flags |= SECTION_LINKONCE; /* S

3 byte variables [feature request]

2013-06-05 Thread kuldeep dhaka
Hello, while working on a program i faced a problem. i need only 20 bit , and having a 32 bit only waste more memory(12 byte), 24bit would much be better. i need a uint24_t variable but gcc dont support it so i have to start with uint32_t. it would be very nice if gcc support such variables. i mad

Reload and addsi

2013-06-05 Thread Hendrik Greving
I am looking at a case (old GCC 3.2.3 is used), which I like to outline as follow: 00.rtl: (insn 2219 2218 2220 (nil) (set (reg:SI 1296) (plus:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:HI 1277) 0) (const_int 1 [0x1]))) -1 (nil) (nil)) (insn 2220 2219 2221 (nil) (set (reg/v:HI 1277)

Re: 3 byte variables [feature request]

2013-06-05 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
On 06/05/2013 10:43 AM, kuldeep dhaka wrote: Hello, while working on a program i faced a problem. i need only 20 bit , and having a 32 bit only waste more memory(12 byte), 24bit would much be better. i need a uint24_t variable but gcc dont support it so i have to start with uint32_t. it would be

Re: 3 byte variables [feature request]

2013-06-05 Thread Rob
On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 01:49:28PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > On 06/05/2013 10:43 AM, kuldeep dhaka wrote: > >Hello, > > > >while working on a program i faced a problem. > >i need only 20 bit , and having a 32 bit only waste more memory(12 > >byte), 24bit would much be better. > >i need a uin

Stability 4.8.1

2013-06-05 Thread Hendrik Greving
Hi we need a (very) stable GCC version for our project. Is 4.8.1 a good pick or is some of the 4.7.x versions better? Regards, Hendrik

Re: Stability 4.8.1

2013-06-05 Thread H.J. Lu
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Hendrik Greving wrote: > Hi > > we need a (very) stable GCC version for our project. Is 4.8.1 a good > pick or is some of the 4.7.x versions better? > > Regards, > Hendrik I recommend GCC 4.7.x. -- H.J.

Re: 3 byte variables [feature request]

2013-06-05 Thread Miles Bader
If you're using C++ and are willing to use gcc (and clang) extensions, you can do a bit better, e.g.: class __attribute__((packed)) int24_t { public: operator int () const { return b; } int24_t (int v) : b (v) {} int24_t () {} private: int b : 24; }; Then an arr

Re: Reload and addsi

2013-06-05 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Hendrik Greving wrote: > I am looking at a case (old GCC 3.2.3 is used), which I like to > outline as follow: Are you really asking about GCC 3.2.3, released over 10 years ago? > (insn 2219 2218 2220 (nil) (set (reg:SI 1296) > (plus:SI (subreg:SI (reg/v:H

Re: 3 byte variables [feature request]

2013-06-05 Thread Anthony Foiani
Miles Bader writes: > If you're using C++ and are willing to use gcc (and clang) extensions, > you can do a bit better, e.g.: > >class __attribute__((packed)) int24_t >{ >public: > operator int () const { return b; } > int24_t (int v) : b (v) {} > int24_t () {} >pri

Re: Reload and addsi

2013-06-05 Thread Hendrik Greving
Yes :) I am asking about 3.2.3 but I think the reload concepts should be about the same. From what I can tell, most of the code I looked at was almost identical to GCC 4.7.3. Yes, the instruction 2219 is a paradoxical subreg. There is a little bit more to the story than I had outlined, let me try