Hi Christian,
On 18/05/15 07:26, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
On 05/13/2015 05:43 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Are target attributes supposed to redefine the preprocessor macros available?
For example, on aarch64 if the file is compiled with floating point support
the __ARM_FEATURE_
Hi All,
Getting a bus/hard error for the below case ,make sense since ldm/stm
expects the address to be word aligned .
bash-4.1$ cat test.c
struct test
{
char c;
int i;
} __attribute__((packed));
struct test a,b;
int main()
{
a =b ; //here compiler is not sure that a or
Hi Guys,
There are several things to report this month:
* GCC now supports targets configured to use the MUSL C library:
http://www.musl-libc.org/
* The Compiler has a new warning option: -Wmisleading-indentation
This generates warnings when the indentation of the
On 18/05/15 09:25, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi Christian,
On 18/05/15 07:26, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
On 05/13/2015 05:43 PM, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
Hi all,
Are target attributes supposed to redefine the preprocessor macros available?
For example, on aarch64 if the file is compiled wit
Hello,
A couple of comments below.
On Mon, 18 May 2015, Nick Clifton wrote:
> val |= ~0 << loaded;// Generates warning
> val |= (unsigned) ~0 << loaded; // Does not warn
To reduce verbosity, '~0u' can be used here instead of a cast.
> * GCC supports a new option: -fn
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the particular motivation is a TMP compile-time search of an
> element, but could be extended to other scenarios.
>
> In my example, given:
>
> template
> struct Static_Find
> {
> static size_t find(size_t /*target*/)
> {
>
2015-05-06 17:18 GMT+03:00 Ilya Enkovich :
> 2015-04-25 4:32 GMT+03:00 Jan Hubicka :
>> Hi,
>> I am adding Vladimir and Richard into CC. I tried to solve similar problem
>> with FP math years ago by having -mfpmath=sse,i387. The idea was to allow
>> use of i387 registers when SSE ones run out and p
Hi,
On Sun, 17 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
> To remove one direct branch to PLT for external function calls:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg1.html
>
> I am proposing to add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 and
> R_X86_64_RELAX_GOTPCREL:
>
> 1. R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32 can
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2015, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> To remove one direct branch to PLT for external function calls:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg1.html
>>
>> I am proposing to add 2 new relocations, R_X86_64_RELAX_PC32
Hi Alexander,
* GCC supports a new option: -fno-plt
Not all architectures support this option, and some other
optimization features, such as lazy binding, may disable it.
The last paragraph looks confusing to be on both points. '-fno-plt' is
implemented as a transformation
Thomas,
In ran into this bootstrap failure with branch gomp-4_0-branch:
...
src/gcc-gomp-4_0-branch/gcc/omp-low.c:2897:1: error: 'omp_context*
enclosing_target_ctx(omp_context*)' defined but not used [-Werror=unused-function]
enclosing_target_ctx (omp_context *ctx)
^
cc1plus: all warnings bei
On 18/05/15 10:05, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Getting a bus/hard error for the below case ,make sense since ldm/stm
> expects the address to be word aligned .
>
> bash-4.1$ cat test.c
> struct test
> {
> char c;
> int i;
> } __attribute__((packed));
>
> struct test a,b;
>
In this case ldm is loading at alignment address. It is just loaded
more than sizeof a. So it can be the bus that does not permit
accessing memory beyond address range of a. Such a case I don't
believe compiler is doing wrong.
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 4:50 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 18/05/15
On 18/05/15 17:18, Joey Ye wrote:
> In this case ldm is loading at alignment address. It is just loaded
> more than sizeof a. So it can be the bus that does not permit
> accessing memory beyond address range of a. Such a case I don't
> believe compiler is doing wrong.
>
If a starts on a 4-byte al
Thank you all for the reply and appreciate elaborate summary .
~Umesh
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
> On 18/05/15 17:18, Joey Ye wrote:
>> In this case ldm is loading at alignment address. It is just loaded
>> more than sizeof a. So it can be the bus that does not per
On 05/18/2015 02:05 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
> Getting a bus/hard error for the below case ,make sense since ldm/stm
> expects the address to be word aligned .
> --with-pkgversion='Cisco GCC c4.7.0-p1' --with-cisco-patch-level=1
The FSF doesn't support gcc-4.7.0 anymore. Generally, we only suppo
On 05/18/2015 02:01 PM, mark maule wrote:
I have a loop which hangs when compiled with -O2, but runs fine when
compiled with -O1. Not sure what information is required to get an
answer, so starting with the full src code. I have not attempted to
reduce to a simpler test case yet.
Typically a
Thank you for taking a look Martin. I will attempt to pare this down,
provide a sample with typedefs/macros expanded, etc. and repost to
gcc-help. To address a couple of your points:
This code does work when compiled -O2 with 4.4.6 (failing is 4.8.3). It
also works on 4.8.3 when dgHandle is
On 04/26/2015 11:47 AM, Shoham Peller wrote:
You are completely right Jonathan. My Apologies.
WPP is a tool I use in my work field on an every-day basis, so I
thought it was known.
Here is the Wikipedia page on WPP:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_software_trace_preprocessor
In short, WPP
On 19/05/15 12:58, mark maule wrote:
> Thank you for taking a look Martin. I will attempt to pare this down,
> provide a sample with typedefs/macros expanded, etc. and repost to
> gcc-help. To address a couple of your points:
If you haven’t already, you can have a look at
https://gcc.gnu.org/
20 matches
Mail list logo
