On 02/12/15 08:51, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 1.12.2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 10:10 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> But IMHO asm("bla":) isn't any better than asm("bla").
>>> I think _any_ asm with non-empty assembler string, that
>>> claims to clobber _nothing_ is highly suspicious,
Hi,
> Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
> are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
No,
It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
the asm statement is not move somewhere else.
I changed the example to use volatile
Sorry for replying so late: I'd been away from my mail for an extended
weekend.
Jeff Law writes:
> On 12/01/2015 07:17 AM, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>> that might be another instance of
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02064
On 02/12/15 12:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
>> are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
>
> No,
>
> It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
> the asm statement is not mo
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015 09:17:48, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > that might be another instance of
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg02064.html
> > Does something like this help?
>
> No, same problem as before. This macro doesn't act
On 02.12.2015 13:29, Rainer Orth wrote:
Exactly: moving AM_ENABLE_MULTILIB up as Matthias suggested sets
cross_compiling=maybe for non-default multilibs early, which should
achieve the desired behaviour. All other libraries that invoke both
macros already do so in this order.
now committed.
2
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20151202 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20151202/
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
On 12/2/2015 3:34 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
No,
It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
the asm statement is not move somewhere e
Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for debugging?
I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to specify "-O0 -g3" via the
command line before running configure, but that only includes those
flags for some of the compilation steps.
I was only successful after I manually edi
On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 20:05 -0500, Ryan Burn wrote:
> Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for
> debugging?
>
> I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to specify "-O0 -g3" via the
> command line before running configure, but that only includes those
> flags for some of t
On 03.12.2015 00:27 David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 12/2/2015 3:34 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
>>> are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
>> No,
>>
>> It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only
We are implementing points-to analysis in GCC 4.7.2 and need to distinguish
between
pointers to scalars and the pointers to structures. This distinction by using
the TYPE (TREE_TYPE)
hierarchy of the tree node of the pointer. We have two questions:
(a) Is it sufficient to check for the presence
12 matches
Mail list logo
