Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > > * ppc: adds -fno-section-anchors to OP_CFLAGS, as dyngen isn't prepared
> > >to deal with the relocs resulting from using section anchors
> >
> > Maybe this should be handled more generally then, not ppc spec
Hi,
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > * ppc: adds -fno-section-anchors to OP_CFLAGS, as dyngen isn't prepared
> >to deal with the relocs resulting from using section anchors
>
> Maybe this should be handled more generally then, not ppc specific, like
> other "offending" compi
Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [please keep me CCed, I'm not on this list]
>
> the below patch let's qemu be compiled by GCC 4.2 (probably also 4.1 and
> others) for most hosts (i386,x86_64,ia64,ppc). s390 as host is missing,
> and needs a compiler change to emit the literal store inline again,
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
> > >I solved that by placing one of the T[012] operands into memory
> > >for HOST_I386, thereby freeing one reg. Here's some justification
> > >of why that doesn't really cost performance: with three free regs
> > >GCC
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 03:30:45PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> I'm only a compiler developer hitting qemu hard enough until it works with
> gcc4 :-)
slightly offtopic, but in the last GCC summit 2007 there was a presentation
with an interesting propossal which makes GCC specifically generate co
On 8/29/07, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > > Thanks for your effor Michael! Now, I only hope, one of the patches
> > > > that makes qemu gcc4 compliant are soon merged.
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 21:57 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [please keep me CCed, I'm not on this list]
>
> the below patch let's qemu be compiled by GCC 4.2 (probably also 4.1 and
> others) for most hosts (i386,x86_64,ia64,ppc). s390 as host is missing,
> and needs a compiler change to e
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Paul Brook wrote:
> >I solved that by placing one of the T[012] operands into memory
> >for HOST_I386, thereby freeing one reg. Here's some justification
> >of why that doesn't really cost performance: with three free regs
> >GCC is alread
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > Thanks for your effor Michael! Now, I only hope, one of the patches
> > > that makes qemu gcc4 compliant are soon merged.
> >
> > Well, to throw a spanner in the works: this patch is the 4th
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > Thanks for your effor Michael! Now, I only hope, one of the patches
> > that makes qemu gcc4 compliant are soon merged.
>
> Well, to throw a spanner in the works: this patch is the 4th patch along
> the lines that I came about. None of t
>I solved that by placing one of the T[012] operands into memory
>for HOST_I386, thereby freeing one reg. Here's some justification
>of why that doesn't really cost performance: with three free regs
>GCC is already spilling like mad in the snippets, we just trade on
Am 29.08.2007 um 16:19 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently
applied
for Q: http://www.kju-app.org/proj/browser/trunk/patches
I'll try to put them on my repo.or.cz repository, too.
Note that from briefly looking at them they appear to co
Hi,
Am 29.08.2007 um 15:59 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently
applied for
Q: http://www.kju-app.org/proj/browser/trunk/patches
Is there _any_ way to get at the raw diffs instead of some @!%!
marked up
HTML abomination that cannot be
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Ronald wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin schreef:
>
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Andreas F?rber wrote:
> >
> > > I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently applied
> > > for Q: http://www.kju-app.org/proj/browser/trunk/patches
> >
> > Is there _any_ way to
Johannes Schindelin schreef:
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Andreas F?rber wrote:
I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently applied for
Q: http://www.kju-app.org/proj/browser/trunk/patches
Is there _any_ way to get at the raw diffs instead of some @!%! marked up
HTML ab
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
> Thanks for your effor Michael! Now, I only hope, one of the patches that
> makes qemu gcc4 compliant are soon merged.
Well, to throw a spanner in the works: this patch is the 4th patch along
the lines that I came about. None of them (AFAICT) wa
Hi ...
Thanks for your effor Michael! Now, I only hope, one of the patches that
makes qemu gcc4 compliant are soon merged. Or, is there any plan to
merge qops?
regards,
Mulyadi
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Andreas F?rber wrote:
> I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently applied for
> Q: http://www.kju-app.org/proj/browser/trunk/patches
Is there _any_ way to get at the raw diffs instead of some @!%! marked up
HTML abomination that cannot be applied?
C
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Andreas Färber wrote:
> > >What do you mean with 0.9.0-cvs? The 0.9.0 GCC4 patches for OSX/Intel
> >
> >Do you mean my patches?
>
> No. Are yours already OSX-compatible?
No OSX, no idea :)
> I referred to previous patches, specifically those currently applied for
> Q:
Am 29.08.2007 um 13:40 schrieb Michael Matz:
The whole patch is against a 0.9.0-cvs version from 2007-07-09 (Alex
might know the exact checkout date), so chances are that it still
applies :)
What do you mean with 0.9.0-cvs? The 0.9.0 GCC4 patches for OSX/Intel
Do you mean my patches?
No.
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>
> > > The whole patch is against a 0.9.0-cvs version from 2007-07-09 (Alex
> > > might know the exact checkout date), so chances are that it still
> > > applies :)
> >
> > It is based on the z80 f
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > The whole patch is against a 0.9.0-cvs version from 2007-07-09 (Alex
> > might know the exact checkout date), so chances are that it still
> > applies :)
>
> It is based on the z80 fork, but it applies relatively cleanly (one
> trailing
Hi,
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am I right to assume that compiling with gcc3 will still work with your
> patch?
Yes.
> In that case your patch would enable qemu to run on gcc4-only platforms
> (where performance doesn't matter too much yet) while allowing to
> compile with
Hi,
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007, Michael Matz wrote:
> The whole patch is against a 0.9.0-cvs version from 2007-07-09 (Alex
> might know the exact checkout date), so chances are that it still
> applies :)
It is based on the z80 fork, but it applies relatively cleanly (one
trailing whitespace) to the
Hi Michael,
Am 28.08.2007 um 21:57 schrieb Michael Matz:
the below patch let's qemu be compiled by GCC 4.2
Thanks for your effort!
Here's some justification
of why that doesn't really cost performance: with three free
regs
GCC is already spilling like mad in the snippets, we
Hi,
[please keep me CCed, I'm not on this list]
the below patch let's qemu be compiled by GCC 4.2 (probably also 4.1 and
others) for most hosts (i386,x86_64,ia64,ppc). s390 as host is missing,
and needs a compiler change to emit the literal store inline again, as the
literal pool at the end f
26 matches
Mail list logo
