Hi,
I've followed the instructions to request access to the GCC compile
farm (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F) but
heard nothing for two weeks, despite a ping. Are the instructions
still correct? Is there anyone else I can contact about it?
Thanks,
Jay.
Hi,
On 9 December 2014 at 09:16, Jay Foad wrote:
> I've followed the instructions to request access to the GCC compile
> farm (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F) but
> heard nothing for two weeks, despite a ping. Are the instructions
> still correct
On 26 January 2015 at 23:50, Fredrik Tolf wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> Consider the following small program:
>
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> double a;
>
> a = strtod(argv[0], NULL);
> printf("%f\n", floor(a));
> return(0);
> }
>
> When com
This source code:
$ cat rand.c
#include
uint32_t rand(uint32_t x) { return (uint64_t)x * 16807 % 0x7FFF; }
compiles to this optimised x86 code:
$ gcc -S -O3 -m32 -fomit-frame-pointer -o - rand.c
...
rand:
subl$28, %esp
movl$16807, %eax
mull32(%esp)
If it's the bug being discussed here:
http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-discuss/2009-April/003717.html
... then it was reported as fixed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00562.html
Jay.
> To support languages that have undefined semantics on overflowing
> operations the middle-end gets new unary and binary operators
> that implicitly encode value-range information about their operands
> noting that the operation does not overflow. These does-not-overflow
> operators transform the
I've just noticed this in config/acx.m4:
dnl GCC_TARGET_TOOL(PROGRAM, TARGET-VAR, HOST-VAR, IN-TREE-TOOL, LANGUAGE)
AC_DEFUN([GCC_TARGET_TOOL],
[AC_MSG_CHECKING(where to find the target $1)
if test "x${build}" != "x${host}" ; then
...
else
ifelse([$4],,,
[ok=yes
case " ${configdirs} " in
> If $4 is empty this expands to "if expr ...", otherwise you get "ok=yes
> ... if test $ok = yes; then ... elif expr ..."
Thanks for the explanation! I didn't realise it was trying to be that clever.
Thanks,
Jay.
On 9 July 2013 11:02, David Given wrote:
> Right now all the cost macros are left as the default, which is probably
> the root of the problem; but I'm having a lot of trouble getting my head
> around them. In the interest of actually getting something to work, are
> there any ways of using a simpl
