On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:58 PM Luis Machado wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get some feedback from the compiler's side before
> implementing a fix for this line numbering problem. I also want to make
> sure i fix it in the right tool.
>
> This is related to this bug report in GDB's bugzilla:
> htt
Hi Team,
Please kindly confirm the attached monthly sms counts and get back to
us asap as we are about to release the payment for September sms push,
to release October SMS payment in few days to come as well.
Download link
http://emaila.drbatras.com/gtrack?clientid=283&ul=
BwdVCwECCBgITQFQAHJf
Hi Luis,
> Is there a better way to force the compiler to output such a line table
> transition without having to resort to a dummy jump? Is there a safer
> way to add such transitions without worrying about the optimizer getting
> rid of them later on? Should we even worry about preserving suc
Hi Maciej,
On 10/16/19 11:11 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
Hi Luis,
Is there a better way to force the compiler to output such a line table
transition without having to resort to a dummy jump? Is there a safer
way to add such transitions without worrying about the optimizer getting
rid of them
On 10/16/19 5:59 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I think that adding an extra jump is unwanted. Instead - if you disregard
the single-source-line case - there's always the jump and the label we jump
to which might/should get different source locations. Like in one of the above
cases:
main ()
{
in
On 10/16/19 11:17 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
Hi Maciej,
On 10/16/19 11:11 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
Hi Luis,
Is there a better way to force the compiler to output such a line table
transition without having to resort to a dummy jump? Is there a safer
way to add such transitions without wor
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:03:34 +0200
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 02:40:42PM +0100, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
> > I've added a new define_expand for msp430 to handle "mulhisi", but when
> > testing
> > the changes, some builtin tests (e.g. builtin-arith-overflow-{1,5,p-1}.c)
> > f
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
> We call expand_expr_real_2 from expand_mul_overflow (internal-fn.c:1604).
> When we process the arguments to:
> __builtin_umul_overflow ((unsigned int) (-1), y, &r);
> at expr.c:8952, they go through a few transformations.
>
>
On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:02:17 +0200
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 05:51:11PM +0100, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote:
> > We call expand_expr_real_2 from expand_mul_overflow (internal-fn.c:1604).
> > When we process the arguments to:
> > __builtin_umul_overflow ((unsigned int) (-1), y, &
I’m trying to grapple with connecting dejagnu to a QEMU simulator; not finding
any obvious examples to work with.
I’ve had a lot of familiarity using CGEN simulators connected to dejagnu, but
QEMU’s a new breed of cat….
Can anyone point me to a boards/.exp that is based on using QEMU, or
provi
On 10/16/19 5:40 PM, Alan Lehotsky via DejaGnu wrote:
> The one example I found via a web search seems to want to do
> everything in the virtual machine - but I have to believe that’s
> going to be insanely slow…
Well, qemu is a virtual machine... Here's the ones I used for GNU
toolchain cross
11 matches
Mail list logo
