Quoting gcc/cp/mangle.c@34394:
/* Non-terminal . NODE is a FUNCTION_TYPE or
METHOD_TYPE. If INCLUDE_RETURN_TYPE is non-zero, the return type
is mangled before the parameter types.
::= F [Y] E */
static void
write_function_type (type, include_return_type)
tree type;
i
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:21:18AM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> Quoting gcc/cp/mangle.c@34394:
See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR2316 ?
Jakub
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip, lr, pc}
subfp, ip, #4
subsp, sp, #20
l
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
> memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
> does optimization like below:
> movip, sp
> stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp
Thanks for elaborating.
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
>> memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
>> does optimizati
Dear GCC team,
thank you very much for your many years efforts
in developing and improving the compiler.
I've tried to download the latest 4.7.4 version from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.7.4
and couldn't successfully check the MD5 sum,
which is given there in the "md5.sum" file.
gcc-
Sergey Boldyrev writes:
> I've tried to download the latest 4.7.4 version from
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.7.4
> and couldn't successfully check the MD5 sum,
> which is given there in the "md5.sum" file.
> gcc-4.7.4.tar.gz appears OK,
> but gcc-4.7.4.tar.bz2 produces an error.
Yup
On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hi,
I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
does optimization like below:
movip, sp
stmfdsp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7, r8, r9, r10, fp, ip, lr, pc}
sub
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20140626 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20140626/
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
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/26/14 02:44, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I ran into PR60947, in which GCC understands the return value of
>> memset is the first argument passed in, according to standard, then
>> does optimization like below:
>> movip, sp
>>
> Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
> perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
> If we don't have a convenient way to do unit-testing, we need
On 27/06/2014 07:31, Roman Gareev wrote:
Are you saying we should better not do unit testing at the moment? (This is
perfectly fine with me, I am just verifying what you said)
Yes, I think we should better not to do it. It seems that unit-testing
isn't supported in gcc.
If we don't have a con
Greetings everybody,
I'm seeking your advice on how to best solve a bug. The issue has to do with
folding a bitfield contained in a union. Consider the following example:
union U {
unsigned int a:24;
unsigned int b:20;
} u = { .a = 0x345678 };
int foo (void)
{
return u.b;
}
Currently, fo
13 matches
Mail list logo
