Hi,
If I have a structure e.g.
struct test_s {
int32_t var1;
int32_t var2;
uint64_t var3;
int var4;
} test;
If I have an offset value of 8, I wish to do a lookup and get to:
test.var3
Is there some part of gcc that I could use to parse .h files and
produce a table for me of offse
On 1 February 2012 15:19, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we've spotted the following mismatch between what kernel folks expect
> from a compiler and what GCC really does, resulting in memory corruption on
> some architectures. Consider the following structure:
> struct x {
> long a;
> unsign
On 3 February 2012 16:24, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 16:57:19 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
>> > And it may be important that some identities (like cos^2+sin^2=1) be
>> > preserved.
>>
>> Well, you're not going to get this without much more work in sin/cos.
>
> If you use the glibc sin()
On 3 February 2012 18:12, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree, that this case have no practical value. It was autogenerated
> between other thousands of tests and showed really strange results, so
> I decided to ask. I thought, this value fits double precision range
> and, according to
On 4 February 2012 00:06, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 17:40:05 +0100, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> While I fail to see how the "correct value" of
>> cos(4.47460300787e+182)+sin(4.47460300787e+182)
>> can be defined in the 'double' world, cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1 and
>> sin(2*x)=2*sin(x)*cos
Hi,
I looked at this a bit closer.
sin(1.0e22) is outside the +-2^63 range, so FPREM1 is used to bring it
inside the range.
So, I looked at FPREM1 a bit closer.
#include
#include
int main (void)
{
long double x, r, m;
x = 1.0e22;
// x = 5.26300791462049950360708478127784; <- This is what t
Hi,
I am looking to transform a tree in SSA form into a representation of it in C.
Example C code:
a = 1;
if (condition) a = 2;
b = a;
In SSA (use $ for the Phi, Φ)
a1 = 1;
if (condition) a2 = 2;
a3 = $(a1, a2);
b1 = a3;
My problem is how do I convert the "a3 = $(a1, a2);" back to normal C cod
2008/12/4 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:20, John Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There are documented methods of SSA decomposition. The naive method is a
>> simple reversal of SSA composition:
>>
>> SSA composition: rename variables (typically by adding suffi
On 3 February 2012 21:48, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-03 17:44:21 +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>
>> > > > For the glibc, I've finally reported a bug here:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13658
>> > >
2012/2/9 Andrew Haley :
> On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
>> x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
>> accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it's
>> certainly possible to do better in the context of SSE, but gcc doesn't
>> know anythin
On 9 February 2012 14:51, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> 2012/2/9 Andrew Haley :
>> On 02/09/2012 01:38 PM, Tim Prince wrote:
>>> x87 built-ins should be a fair compromise between speed, code size, and
>>> accuracy, for long double, on most CPUs. As Richard says, it&
On 10 February 2012 10:42, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 10:07 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> The issue with libm in glibc here is that Drepper absolutely does
>> not want new ABIs in libm - he believes that for example vectorized
>> routines do not belong there (nor the SSE calling-conve
On 10 February 2012 14:05, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 01:30 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>> On 10 February 2012 10:42, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> I think a starting point would be at least documenting correctly the
>> accuracy of the current libm, becau
On 10 February 2012 14:36, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 02:24 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>> On 10 February 2012 14:05, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 02/10/2012 01:30 PM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
>>>> On 10 February 2012 10:42, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
On 13 February 2012 15:24, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-02-10 17:41:49 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 02/10/2012 05:31 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>> > it would be also nice to see functions for reducing argument range in
>> > public api.
>> > finally the end-user can use e.g. sin(reduce(x)) to
On 22 February 2012 13:34, 嘉谟 wrote:
> 2012/2/22 James Courtier-Dutton :
>> The order that function parameters are evaluated is undefined. Therefore it
>> is wise to ensure that no matter what order they are evaluated, the result
>> should be the same. It is the ++ that b
On 22 February 2012 19:05, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> On 22 February 2012 13:34, 嘉谟 wrote:
>> 2012/2/22 James Courtier-Dutton :
>>> The order that function parameters are evaluated is undefined. Therefore it
>>> is wise to ensure that no matter what order the
On 17 December 2009 21:53, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2009, at 1:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 12/16/2009 03:21 AM, John Regehr wrote:
>>> Hopefully the results are more fair and useful now. Again, feedback is
>>> appreciated.
>>
>> I would also avoid testcases using volatile. Small
Hi,
I know most compilers go from AST to CFG.
I am writing a decompiler, so I was wondering if anyone knew of any
documents describing how best to get from CFG to AST.
The decompiler project is open source.
https://github.com/jcdutton/libbeauty
The decompiler already contains a disassembler and a
Hi,
I am writing a decompiler for lib or .o files.
For the application developer, one would have the lib or .o file and a
.h file that would identify the api for the application developer to
use to make use of the lib or .o file.
For my decompiler, I therefore need to be able to process the .h
fil
2008/4/25 Prateek Saxena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Ralph Loader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I am very interested in seeing how this optimization can remove
> > > arithmetic overflows.
> >
> > int foo (char * buf, int n)
> > {
> > // buf+n may over
2008/4/27 Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Fortunately there is a assembler instruction to do just this on most CPUs.
> > e.g. jo, jc, js
> > It would be nice to be able to write this sort of C code.
> >
> > int a,b,c;
> > a = b + c;
> > if (a overflowed) {
> >handle_overflow();
> > }
>
I am trying to look at assembler code, and representing it as C code.
For ia32, x86 platforms,
assembler like the following
ADD eax,ebx;
JO integer_overflow_detected;
How would I represent this in C?
Kind Regards
James
2008/4/28 Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 28.04.2008 13:11:39:
>
>
>
> > I am trying to look at assembler code, and representing it as C code.
> >
> > For ia32, x86 platforms,
> > assembler like the following
> >
> > ADD eax,ebx;
> > JO integer_overflow_detected;
24 matches
Mail list logo
