On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
>> Hi, all
>>
>> I do the research of min max instructions recently. I find it is related
>> with phiopt.
>>
>> case1:
>> int foo(short a ,short b)
>> {
>> if (a < b)
>>
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
>
>Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
> warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
> discussed in this thread:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html
>
> Ian's reply
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different.
>> The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers. There is no
>> option to force the 64-bit compiler to pass arg
Hi,
Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a
warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is
discussed in this thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html
Ian's reply suggests this warning is no longer necessary and can be
removed.
On 12-11-04 5:46 PM, David Miller wrote:
Unlike the other variables that track the state of the current
instruction being analyzed by the LRA constraints code, I don't
see anything which initializes best_reload_nregs when we start
looking at a new instruction.
It is actually not necessary because
On 12-11-03 9:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
On 32-bit sparc with LRA enabled we have the following (this
generated for gcc.dg/vect/pr51581-4.c with -flto):
(insn 252 142 165 4 (set (reg:HI 234 [ D.1511 ])
(mem/c:HI (plus:SI (reg/f:SI 1307)
(const_int 24 [0x18])) [4 b+24 S2
I know it , thanks.
-邮件原件-
发件人: Martin Jambor [mailto:mjam...@suse.cz]
发送时间: 2012年11月5日 6:14
收件人: Yangyueming
抄送: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
主题: Re: [help]failed to generate PHI NODE in esra pass.
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I do the research of
On Nov 3, 2012, Bruce Korb wrote:
> I have realized that it would be real useful to know which fixinclude fixes
> are actually in use so that old cruft can get retired. Since nobody at all
> has direct access to all the actively maintained platforms, it makes it
> difficult to know.
How about
Snapshot gcc-4.8-20121104 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8-20121104/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.8 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Unlike the other variables that track the state of the current
instruction being analyzed by the LRA constraints code, I don't
see anything which initializes best_reload_nregs when we start
looking at a new instruction.
make_extraction can be passed the position either as a HOST_WIDE_INT or as a
RTX, and canonicalizes to the former if the latter is CONST_INT_P. But this
is done slightly too late for one of the supported cases.
Tested on x86_64-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2012-11-04 Eric Botcazou
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:01:53AM +, Yangyueming wrote:
> Hi, all
>
> I do the research of min max instructions recently. I find it is related with
> phiopt.
>
> case1:
> int foo(short a ,short b)
> {
> if (a < b)
> a = b;
> return a;
> }
>
> It is successed in pass phiopt1(
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Richard Sandiford
wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck writes:
>> I would like you to respond to at least point 1 of this email. In it
>> there is code from the rtl level that was written twice, once for the
>> case when the size of the mode is less than the size of a HWI and
On Thu, 18 Oct 2012, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> That PR now has a link to a mocked up bugzilla page:
> http://www.kayari.plus.com/gcc/enter_bug.cgi-1.html which I think
> would be a significant improvement, without getting in the way or
> being an eyesore.
>
> Do any other maintainers have an opinio
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 18:08 +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
> Hi Oleg
>
> Could you explain how you get around the following:
>
> (1) Doesn't the non-overloaded operator&& return 'bool', not
> 'TriBool'?
Yes, by default it takes bool on both sides and returns bool.
> How can it be made to return 'T
On 04/11/12 10:34, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mischa Baars
wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars
wrote:
I have been writing this piece of example code, but
On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/02/2012 07:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars
wrote:
I have been writing this piece of example code, but it seems that someone
has been modifyin
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 11:02 +1100, Clinton Mead wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> This is a feature request. To explain, lets say I want to create a
>> TriBool type, like so:
>>
>> enum TriBool { False, True, Unknown };
>>
>> I now want to implement operato
18 matches
Mail list logo
