On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
> I am having an issue with placing includes of expr.h in gcc-plugin.h.
> rtl.h is required to be included before expr.h, so I put it in gcc-plugin.h.
> However the front-ends then fail to build because rtl.h is not allowed
> in front-ends,
> a
On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I am having an issue with placing includes of expr.h in gcc-plugin.h.
>> rtl.h is required to be included before expr.h, so I put it in gcc-plugin.h.
>> However the front-ends then fail
On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I am having an issue with placing includes of expr.h in gcc-plugin.h.
>>> rtl.h is required to be included before expr.h, so I put it
On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan wrote:
> On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>>>
Hi,
I am having an issue with placing includes of expr.h in gcc-plugin.h.
rtl.h is
Hi,
If I want libraries to be built with -A by default and dirb to contain
libraries built with -B, I can simply write makefile fragment
MULTILIB_OPTIONS = A/B
MULTILIB_DIRNAMES= dira dirb
And inside machine description:
#define MULTILIB_DEFAULTS { "A" }
But what if I want little more
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan wrote:
> > On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >>>
> Hi,
> I am having an issue
On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan wrote:
>> > On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >> On 14 January 2015 at 14:37, Richard Biener wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh K
On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >
> >> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 14/01/15 21:24, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> >> >> On 14 January 2015 at 14:
On 14 January 2015 at 16:18, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2015, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 14 January 2015 at 16:13, Kugan
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On 14/01/15 21:24,
On 09/12/2014 07:40 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
I went through excercise of running LTO bootstrap with ODR verification on.
There are some typename clashes
I guess we want to fix. I wonder what approach is preferred, do we want to
introduce anonymous
namespaces for those?
Honza
../../gcc/tli
Hello out there,
I am looking of some support maintaining the m68k target toolchain (incl GDB)
for the fido1100 (basically a CPU32, the real changes are in GDB). Some
experience with the m68k target would be helpful.
Is there someone around that maybe interested in that? Or does someone knows a
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150114 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150114/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi
I noticed the arm-rtems (and I assume arm-eabi) have these warnings
about calloc() and realloc(). Can this file include stdlib.h to resolve
this?
../../../gcc/libgcc/emutls.c: In function '__emutls_get_address':
../../../gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:159:13: warning: implicit declaration of
function 'ca
The "Options That Control Optimization" section of the manual is
currently divided into three parts (not subsections, just separate
option lists):
(1) General options like -O[n]
(2) Options that individually control options enabled by default at some
-O[n] setting
(3) Options controlling op
On 01/14/15 16:48, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
The "Options That Control Optimization" section of the manual is
currently divided into three parts (not subsections, just separate
option lists):
(1) General options like -O[n]
(2) Options that individually control options enabled by default at some
-
Hi,
I have some code where we generate some weird code that has stores
followed by a load from the same location.
For an example we get:
add x14, sp, 240
add x15, sp, 232
str x14, [sp, 136]
mov w2, w27
ldr w1, [sp, 136]
str x15, [sp, 136]
ldr w0, [sp, 136]
The RTL originally using an offset of t
> Hello.
>
> I've just finished successfully chromium LTO build and there's list of mainly
> -Wodr warnings.
> I think some of them are false positives?
What of those you consider to be false?
I wonder if we can print just type name so we avoid using the wrong "struct" in
place of class...
>
>
On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too
many options!
Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options. :-)
But that's not likely to change. Though perhaps the
process will encourage some culling of options that
On 01/14/15 23:12, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 01/14/2015 08:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
With the section being ~60 pages, my first thought is we have way too
many options!
Heh, at least we have documentation for all those options. :-)
But that's not likely to change. Though perhaps the
process
19 matches
Mail list logo
