Root Node of AST

Hi, I want the root node of the AST built by gcc, so that I can do the manipulations I want to do on the intermediate nodes of AST. Can someone tell me where I can find the root node of AST and the place where the construction of AST finishes in GCC source. Thanks in Advance Rajesh Babu

PRE in GCC-3.3.3

Hi, I found that PRE is not done in gcc-3.3.3, though the code for doing PRE exists in source code. In the following example, expression a+b is partially redundant and must be eliminated, but it is not done when gcc-3.3.3 is used, where as it is done when gcc-3.4.1 is used. Can someo

Re: Root Node of AST

On 03/12/05 08:14, Rajesh Babu wrote: I want the root node of the AST built by gcc, so that I can do the manipulations I want to do on the intermediate nodes of AST. Can someone tell me where I can find the root node of AST and the place where the construction of AST finishes in GCC source.

Re: PR debug/19345

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Jason Merrill wrote: On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 10:28:44 -0500, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: However, according to Jakub, " TYPE_NAME (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (origin)) on that testcase is NULL, so it doesn't help match." ...which is why we still need TYPE_STUB_DECL. It seems

Re: Root Node of AST

I am working with gcc-3.3.3, and I want to insert my module after construction of AST and before RTL generation. Rajesh On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, Diego Novillo wrote: On 03/12/05 08:14, Rajesh Babu wrote: I want the root node of the AST built by gcc, so that I can do the manipulations I want to d

Re: How is lang.opt processed?

On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 06:39 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: What is even more appalling is that there is no way to inhibit the swallowing of the options. Sure there is, it is just a matter of code. Check out --classpath and option_map for example in gcc.c. Sure seems like it isn't harder than a

Re: How is lang.opt processed?

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 06:39 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: > >What is even more appalling is that there is no way to inhibit the > >swallowing of the options. > > Sure there is, it is just a matter of code. Check out --classpath and

Re: How is lang.opt processed?

On Saturday, March 12, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: If lang.opt is the canonical method used to declare language specific option, then there should be a feature in parsing lang.opt to override all other options. Hard to disagree with anything you said...

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > You probably noticed that in the polynomial expansion, you are using > | > an integer power -- which everybody agrees on yield 1 at the limit. > | > > | > I'm tlaking about 0^

Re: Received welcome message.

On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 11:12:18AM +0800, Feng Wang wrote: > Hello, > > I have received the confirming mail for my application on "write after > approval". Thanks, all. > > p.s. Steve, I think I can commit the patch for PR18827 myself. > If you reviewed, please notify me. > > Best Regards, > Fen

RFC: Changes in the representation of call clobbers

To represent call-clobbering effects we currently collect all the call-clobbered symbols and make every call a definition site for each of them. For instance, given 3 global variables X, Y and Z: foo() { X = 3 Y = 1 Z = X + 1 bar () Y = X + 2 return Y + Z } we put the three symbols in

DR#236 update

The pre-Lillehammer WG14 mailing includes N with an updated analysis of the DR#236 aliasing issues taking account of comments previously made on this list. -- Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/

Re: Feature request: Globalize symbol

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Henderson) wrote on 11.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:48:35AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > Isn't a compiler option -fglobalize-symbol also a form of source-level > > > instrumentation? Either way, you need the source, and you get d

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Dewar) wrote on 07.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ronny Peine wrote: > > > Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here) > > But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far. > > Were these math classes, or CS classes. Let's just say t

gcc-4.0-20050312 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050312 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050312/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050312 You'll

Re: are link errors caused by mixing of versions?

Michael Cieslinski wrote: /usr/bin/ld: Warning: size of symbol `ACE_At_Thread_Exit::~ACE_At_Thread_Exit()' changed from 46 in .shobj/POSIX_Proactor.o to 48 in .shobj/Proactor.o This looks like a destructor function name, which means two different versions of gcc generated different code for the sa

Re: Target specific memory attributes from RTL

Balaji S wrote: _On 11-Mar-2005 02:48, James E Wilson san wrote_: Is expression evaluation (expr.c, expand_expr_real) converting tree into RTL, the right place to extend GCC as required? Basically, yes. However, variables declarations are typically handled separately from the expression, so if y

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

Richard Stallman wrote: Currently, I believe, GCC combines various calls to abort in a single function, because it knows that none of them returns. To give this request a little context, consider the attached example. If I compile this with -O2 -g, and run it under the debugger, it tells me that

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

James E Wilson wrote: To give this request a little context, consider the attached example. This time actually attached. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com int sub (int i, int j) { if (i == 0) abort (); else if (j == 0) abort (); else return i * j; } int

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:07, James E Wilson wrote: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > Currently, I believe, GCC combines various calls to abort in a single > > function, because it knows that none of them returns. > > To give this request a little context, consider the attached example. May I recomme

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] | > You've transmuted the function x^y to the function x^x which is a | > different beast. Existing of limit of the latter does not imply | > existance of limit of the former. Again check the counterexamples in | > the message I referred to above. |

Re: Question about "#pragma pack(n)" and "-fpack-struct"

James E Wilson wrote: -fpack-struct and #pragma pack(2) are contraditctory instructions, and -fpack-struct wins. It was never the intent to allow both. Current gcc sources will give a warning saying that the pragma pack is being ignored. If you want some structures that aren't fully packed, th

Non-bootstrap build status reports

Is there a reason why non-bootstrap build status reports are not archived? For example, for the many targets that are only used in cross configurations, it would be nice to see if they are working. Also, it might be nice to have a record of negative build reports. For instance, the build status

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

> From: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > |Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Thank you. In essence, I've intentionally defined the question of x^y's > | value about x=y->0 as a constrained "bivariate" function, to where only > | the direction, not the relative rate of the argument's