on some linux architectures there are some symbols missing in libstdc++.so.6
built from the 4.9 branch. I didn't notice before due to a packaging bug.
affected are ARM32, HPPA, SPARC.
- ARM32 (build log [1], both soft and hard float) are missing
__aeabi_atexit@CXXABI_ARM_1.3.3
__aeabi_
On 1 July 2014 09:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
> - HPPA (build log [2]), is missing all the future_base symbols and
>exception_ptr13exception symbols, current_exception and
>rethrow_exception.
This implies ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE <= 1 for that target. Our future and
exception_ptr implementation
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 06/26/14 14:13, 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 optimiza
Am 01.07.2014 11:32, schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On 1 July 2014 09:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - HPPA (build log [2]), is missing all the future_base symbols and
>>exception_ptr13exception symbols, current_exception and
>>rethrow_exception.
>
> This implies ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE <= 1 for t
Hi Tobias,
could you please advise me how to verify the results of gimple code
generation? I've written the first draft of the generation of loops
with empty bodies and tried to verify gimple code using the
representation, which is dumped at the end of the generation of the
dump_file. If we consid
Thank you for the answer!
--
Cheers, Roman Gareev
On 01/07/2014 14:53, Roman Gareev wrote:
Hi Tobias,
could you please advise me how to verify the results of gimple code
generation?
More comments inline, but here something on a very high level.
I personally like testing already on the GIMPLE level and could see us
matching for certain expres
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint modifier (+)
and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
...
$ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md:1
gcc/config/arc/arc.md:1
gcc/config/arm/ldmstm.md:30
gcc/con
On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint
modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
...
$ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0
gcc/config/aarch64/aarch64-simd.md:1
gcc/config/arc/arc.md
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/01/14 13:27, Tom de Vries wrote:
Vladimir,
There are a few patterns which use both the read/write constraint
modifier (+) and the earlyclobber constraint modifier (&):
...
$ grep -c 'match_operand.*+.*&' gcc/config/*/* | grep -v :0
gcc/config/aarch64/a
On 1-Jul-14, at 5:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 1 July 2014 09:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
- HPPA (build log [2]), is missing all the future_base symbols and
exception_ptr13exception symbols, current_exception and
rethrow_exception.
This implies ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE <= 1 for that target.
On 1 July 2014 20:58, John David Anglin wrote:
> On 1-Jul-14, at 5:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 1 July 2014 09:40, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> - HPPA (build log [2]), is missing all the future_base symbols and
>>> exception_ptr13exception symbols, current_exception and
>>> rethrow_ex
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recommendation would be for this to be considered
Revisiting an old thread, as I still want to get this feature in...
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-10/msg00099.html
> >> Why do you need to change varasm.c at all? The hunks seem to be
> >> completely separate of the attribute.
> >
> > Because static constructors have fields in the original or
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any reasonable semantics for &+. My
recomme
On 02-07-14 08:23, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 01-07-14 21:58, Marc Glisse wrote:
So my question is: is the combination of '&' and '+' supported ? If so,
what is the exact semantics ? If not, should we warn or give an error ?
I don't think we can define any r
16 matches
Mail list logo