On 3/21/2014 2:57 AM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 11:07:21AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by misunderstandings of GCC's inline assembler. That's partly
because it's inherently tricky, but the existing
Matthew Fortune writes:
> Thanks Joseph. I guess I'm not really pushing to have don't-care
> supported as it would take a lot of effort to determine when code does
> and does not care, you rightly point out more cases to deal with
> too. I'm not sure if the benefit would then be worth it or not as
"Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
>>
>> "Thomas Preud'homme" writes:
>>
>> -mno-float causes gcc to define the macro __mips_no_float, which the
>> implementation can use when deciding whether to bother handling %f, etc.
>> I'm afraid the
Sorry for the slow response.
dw writes:
> On 3/3/2014 3:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Well, like you say, things can be moved across branches. So, although
>> this is a very artificial example:
>>
>> asm ("x");
>> asm ("y");
>>
>> could become:
>>
>> goto bar;
>>
>> foo:
>
On 22/03/14 01:47, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/21/14 18:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
I've found that "removing uneeded moves through registers" is
something gcc does poorly in the post-reload optimizers. I've written
my own on some occasions (for rl78 too). Perhaps this is a good
starting point to look at
On 22/03/14 01:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
Is it possible that the virtual pass causes inefficiencies in some
cases by sticking with r8-r31 when one of the 'normal' registers
would be better?
That's not a fair question to ask, since the virtual pass can *only*
use r8-r31. The first bank has to be le
I want to ask how I can find the bugs in bugzilla which are listed in
the "Quality Data" Table. It feels that there are more bugs which are
not listed. For example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694
Actually the compiler returns "not implemented" while compiling the
given example co
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Thanks Joseph. I guess I'm not really pushing to have don't-care
> > supported as it would take a lot of effort to determine when code does
> > and does not care, you rightly point out more cases to deal with
> > too. I'm not sure if the benefit wo
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20140322 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20140322/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
