Thanks,
Prasad
On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>>> wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 00:20, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
>
> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarn
Hi Johann,
I tested a variant of your patch, building Linux for 32 different
(sub-)architectures; surprisingly (to me) there are no regressions
at all.
Do you want to send it to gcc-patches?
Segher
diff --git a/gcc/combine.c b/gcc/combine.c
index 77e0d2b..750bf83 100644
--- a/gcc/combine.c
++
Some processor architectures do support bitwise access to memory, eg. ARM
Cortex-M and 8051 (by ARM called bit-banding).
In these architectures a single bit can somewhat be addressable, but only as an
'aliased' memory region for another memory address.
I noticed that Keil ARMCC compiler now seem
On 29.07.2016 09:47, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Johann,
I tested a variant of your patch, building Linux for 32 different
(sub-)architectures; surprisingly (to me) there are no regressions
at all.
I am not so surprised because most backends don't make such an intense use of
hard-regs like t
Thanks,
Prasad
On 29 July 2016 at 12:55, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> Thanks,
>> Prasad
>>
>>
>> On 29 July 2016 at 06:56, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 July 2016 at 00:01, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
On 27 July 2016 at 14:22, Ri
On 29/07/16 10:25, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
> Some processor architectures do support bitwise access to memory, eg. ARM
> Cortex-M and 8051 (by ARM called bit-banding).
> In these architectures a single bit can somewhat be addressable, but only as
> an 'aliased' memory region for another memo
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:05:13AM +0200, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> There might still problems linger around if hard-regs are used:
>
> Suppose we set the reg in DImode and then get_last_value is called for the
> same reg in SImode. Using the DI value might be wrong, e.g. if it is used
> to com
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful after 15 years of
divergence.
The current gl
On 07/29/2016 07:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> BTW, does this libiberty replacement project also fix binutils and gdb, or
> will these other libiberty users require independent patches for their
> respective projects?
GDB is already making extensive use of gnulib (I don't know to what extent
it st
On 07/29/2016 05:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
resync
with glibc, though that could prove painful
On 07/29/2016 05:34 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/29/2016 07:30 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
On 07/25/2016 06:30 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 25/07/16 21:16, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Jeff Law wrote:
I'll pre-approve removing those bits. Alternately, you could look to
res
> Booleans are very useful - they turn up all over the place in programming.
>
> Nibbles, on the other hand, are almost totally useless. There are very,
> very few situations where you need to store a number that is within the
> range 0 .. 15, and are so tightly constrained for space that you can'
On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
>> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
>> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
libiberty cannot be replaced completely, because there are bits that
do not even exist in gnulib. And given the time frame, I d
On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
> >> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
>
> libiberty cannot be replaced completely, because there are bits that
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> On 29 July 2016 at 16:25, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >> Well, if libiberty is going to be replaced en masse by gnulib, then
>> >> there's no sense in me cleaning up libiberty's regex.
>>
>> libiber
Let's imagine we have a 4-bit type, called nibble.
sizeof(nibble) == 1, because you can't have an object with a smaller size.
nibble a[2];
sizeof(a) == 1;
Because otherwise there isn't much benefit.
So now we have a type which violates one of the core rules of the type
system. sizeof(nibble[2 *
On 7/29/16, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Let's imagine we have a 4-bit type, called nibble.
>
> sizeof(nibble) == 1, because you can't have an object with a smaller size.
>
> nibble a[2];
> sizeof(a) == 1;
>
> Because otherwise there isn't much benefit.
--bitsizeof() is required.
> So now we have a
> Given a pointer to an array of nibbles and a length, how do I iterate
> through the array?
for(i=0; ihttp://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)
On 29 July 2016 at 20:01, Warren D Smith wrote:
>> Given a pointer to an array of nibbles and a length, how do I iterate
>> through the array?
>
> for(i=0; i
> --correction, that was for an array of packed bools. For nybbles,
> bitsizeof(a)/4. There are various games one can play, and quibbles one
21 matches
Mail list logo
