Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

Zack Weinberg wrote: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Zack Weinberg wrote: Last year CodeSourcery had a contract to speed up the C++ front end at -O0, and we found that small linear reductions in memory usage corresponded directly to small linear reductions in time usage, at about a 2:1 rat

about "Alias Analysis for Intermediate Code"

i can`t find it in current gcc version. pleas do me the favor to tell me about it.

Re: about "Alias Analysis for Intermediate Code"

On Monday 04 April 2005 10:09, zouq wrote: > i can`t find it in current gcc version. > pleas do me the favor to tell me about it. I can only guess that you probably mean the Debray alias analysis proposed at the GCC summit in 2003. Follow this link for the paper: "http://gcc.fyxm.net/summit/2003/

Re: PR 20505

James E Wilson wrote: The testcase is not portable, as I pointed out in the PR. Trying this on an x86_64-linux system, I get 27 "excess errors" failures. All of them are error: cast from 'int*' to 'int' loses precision Using long works better than int, but is still not fool proof, as there ar

gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

Hello, i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1 snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified wrt namespace: namespace dummy { struct foo { template void f() {} }; } template<> void dummy::foo::f<666>() {} testcase.c

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

tbp wrote: Hello, i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1 snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified wrt namespace: It has to be written this way: namespace dummy { template<> void dummy::foo::f<666>() {} or template<> void foo::f<

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Am i missing something obvious? > well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says. I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is legit: n

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

tbp wrote: On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Am i missing something obvious? well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says. I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined that way when non specialized version don't have to, ie that is leg

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:47:56AM +0200, tbp wrote: > Hello, > > i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1 > snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified > wrt namespace: [snip] > Other compilers (gcc 3.4.x, msvc2k3, icc8.1) don't whine. GCC 3.4 *d

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Apr 4, 2005 12:21 PM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's not a declaration, it's a definition of an already declared fn. > the case you had was a definition that was _also_ a declaration. [...] > See the difference? Yes, and i know about it... > Although it is kind of quirky tha

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode. Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with the highest warning level enabled.

Re: SUBTARGET_OPTIONS / SUBTARGET_SWITCHES with .opt

> A back end for a target architecture in GCC has the following parts: > [...] > @item > An optional @[EMAIL PROTECTED] file in the @[EMAIL PROTECTED] > directory, containing a list of target-specific options. You can also > add other option files using the @code{extra_opti

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:15:07PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Am i missing something obvious? > > well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says. > I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined > that way

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:19PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode. > Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with > the highest warning level enabled.

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

tbp wrote: Sorry for the noise, but i don't own a copy of that byzantine standard. np. to paraphrase another thread 'here's 18$, go get yourself one'[1] nathan [1] available electronically from ansi or iso or some web site. -- Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hope that helps, Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint about namespace) for me to fix it. I stand corrected.

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hope that helps, > Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint > about namespace) for me to fix it. :-) It might be even better if the error indi

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:02:59PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hope that helps, > > Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint > > abo

"personal" branch?

I am doing some academic work on GCC and am finding it hard to manage my patches locally. Would anyone have any strong objections if I were to indulge in creating a branch in the FSF repository for little old me? The volume of my deltas will not be large. Ben pgpBZUGqq4DUi.pgp Description: PG

Re: "personal" branch?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Ben Elliston wrote: > I am doing some academic work on GCC and am finding it hard to manage > my patches locally. Would anyone have any strong objections if I were > to indulge in creating a branch in the FSF repository for little old > me? The volume of my deltas will not be

gcc4, static array, SSE & alignement

Ok, since i've already looked like an uneducated fool today and i'm grasping at straws... Question: why do i get an unaligned array as soon as g++ (4.1.0 20050327, cygwin) finds out that it's static (i mean even if i try to fool it around a bit)? It seems to only happen with multidimensionnal arra

4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members are at different offsets. If you run the appended code with g++ version 3.4.1, you get

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:07:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work > on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is > that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members are > at different off

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 08:48 AM, Stefan Strasser wrote: > > > if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a _very_ > > > long ti

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > public: > long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object l; I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of bugs about the use of __alignof__ and attribute aligned on members of classes (maybe templates only?). Ar

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

Joe Buck writes: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:07:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work > > on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is > > that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- m

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > Well, yes and no - I sometimes think that gcc doesn't have *enough* knobs. Lots of knobs <=> inadequate testing and failures when users issue a combination of knob settings that have never been tested. That's why I find Gentoo rath

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

Giovanni Bajo writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > public: > > long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object > l; > > I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of bugs about > the use of __alignof__ and attribute aligned on

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > public: > > > long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object > > l; > > > > I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of bugs about > > the use of __alignof__ and attribute aligned on members of classe

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

On Apr 3, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: so the question is do similar opportunities still exist? GCC wiki has a laundry list @ http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Speedup%20areas - Devang

Re: How is lang.opt processed?

On Apr 3, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Steve, Toon, On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve Kargl wrote: Jim, Thanks for the detailed explanation of how GCC options work. On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Toon Moene wrote: Ditto. Jim, are you reading from some documentation about this option processing that I

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

Giovanni Bajo writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > public: > > > > long long __attribute__((aligned(__alignof__( ::java::lang::Object > > l; > > > > > > I don't recall the exact details, but I have fixed a couple of > > > bugs about the use of __alignof_

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On Apr 3, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: On Apr 1, 2005, at 16:36, Mark Mitchell wrote: In fact, I've long said that GCC had too many knobs. (For example, I just had a discussion with a customer where I explained that the various optimization passes, while theoretically orthogonal, are not

Cross-compiling for PPC405 core...

Bonjour – I own a Mac OS X 10.3.8 loaded with gcc 3.3 on it. I’d like to add a gcc target so that I can also cross-compile for PowerPC 405 core CPU (as featured in a Xilinx Virtex-2 Pro FPGA). I know I need to download something from GCC website and build gcc on Darwin 7.8 with some options for t

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Giovanni Bajo writes: Is __alignof__( ::java::lang::Object ) the same under 3.4 and 4.0 in the first place? Yes, 4 in both cases. And here is the most reduced testcase (and it shows that the C and C++ front-ends don't agree any more which is bad): #

Re: Cross-compiling for PPC405 core...

On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:13 AM, François Mainguy wrote: Bonjour – I own a Mac OS X 10.3.8 loaded with gcc 3.3 on it. I’d like to add a gcc target so that I can also cross-compile for PowerPC 405 core CPU (as featured in a Xilinx Virtex-2 Pro FPGA). I know I need to download something from GCC webs

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 1:01 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: Giovanni Bajo writes: Is __alignof__( ::java::lang::Object ) the same under 3.4 and 4.0 in the first place? Yes, 4 in both cases. And here is the most reduced testcase (and it shows that the C and C++

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

Joe Buck wrote: $20? That does not seem to correspond to current prices: Yes, Mike's off by a factor of roughly 5. or n months for a not very large value of n :-)

specification for gcc compilers on sparc and powerpc

Hello I appreciate your work and do not want to bother you, but I hope, that somebody will send me some helpful answer on my question. Is anyone can send me his 'specs' file (contains configuration for working compiler) ?? (this is standard localization: " /usr/lib/gcc-lib/name_of_compiler/lib/

Re: Question regarding MIPS_GPREL_16 relocation

"Mile Davidovic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But problem is passing G0 option, if I simple put > MULTILIB_OPTIONS = G0 mlong-calls msoft-float EL/EB mips32/mips64 > building library fail. If you add something to MULTILIB_OPTIONS, you need to add an entry to MULTILIB_DIRNAMES as well. (Sorry

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On 2005-04-04, at 19:46, Dale Johannesen wrote: On Apr 3, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Geert Bosch wrote: On Apr 1, 2005, at 16:36, Mark Mitchell wrote: In fact, I've long said that GCC had too many knobs. (For example, I just had a discussion with a customer where I explained that the various optimization p

Re: specification for gcc compilers on sparc and powerpc

Marek Krzyzowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello > > I appreciate your work and do not want to bother you, but I hope, that > somebody will send me some helpful answer on my question. Is anyone can send > me his 'specs' file (contains configuration for working compiler) ?? > (this is stand

Major bootstrap time regression on March 30

Hi, We have a bootstrap time regression since March 30. Bootstrap times on Diego Novillo's SPEC box went up from (an already high) 5500s to almost 8000s, see: http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/gcc/gcc-compiler-build-secs_elapsed.png On IRC a patch possibly causing this regression was m

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3 > i686-pc-linuux-gnu and haven't seen any problemss upto Friday. I'm > using --enable-checking=tree,misc,rtl,rtlflag which might make a > difference. I'm still observing this proble

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3 i686-pc-linuux-gnu and haven't seen any problemss upto Friday. I'm using --enable-checking=tree,misc,rtl,rtlflag which might make a di

call for testers!

I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that lots of people have tri

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3 >>> i686-pc-linuux-gnu and haven't seen any problemss upto Frida

Re: call for testers!

> Geoffrey Keating writes: Geoff> The only work involved, assuming you already have a bootstrapped tree, Geoff> would be to apply the patch and run 'make quickstrap' or even 'make Geoff> gnucompare'; and possibly a single 'cmp' command. This should take Geoff> about 1 minute. make

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I do regular bootstraps of mainline all languages on FC3 i686-pc-linuux-gnu and

Re: call for testers!

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, > cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in > is on their > bootstrap. I'll check HP

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 3:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2005, Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: On Mar 26, 2005, Graham Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against 4.0. The good news is that there are fewer than last week. There are several bugs for which it appears that all that remains to be done is apply a mainline patch to the 4.0 branch. These are listed at the bottom of the summary

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On 4 Apr 2005, Marcin Dalecki stipulated: > I don't agree with the argument presented by Geert Bosch. It's even more > difficult to > muddle through the atrocities of autoconf/automake to find the places where > compiler > switches get set in huge software projects What's so hard about find . \

Re: call for testers!

> I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, > cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in > is on their > bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means > that lots of peopl

HPUX/HPPA build broken (was Re: call for testers!)

I wrote: > >I'll check HP-UX/HPPA and let you know; since I didn't have a recent > >bootstrap of the trunk it will take a bit. On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Even a relatively old bootstrap will do, assembler/linker > nondeterminism is what I'm really concern

Re: HPUX/HPPA build broken (was Re: call for testers!)

> I didn't even have an old bootstrap of the trunk for HP-UX; I tried to do > one and it died with > > ./xgcc -B./ -B/u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/bin/ -isystem > /u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/include -isystem > /u/jbuck/cvs.hp/trunk/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/sys-include

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Perhaps. But the fundamental problem is that we shouldn't be hashing > on pointers, and tree-eh.c does just that for finally_tree and > throw_stmt_table. > I've heard both versions: that hashing on pointers is no big deal, and th

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against >> 4.0. The good news is that there are fewer than last week. Earlier today, Andrew Haley posted a small C++ snippet showing an ABI change affecting gcj on PPC32: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: 20734 rejects valid pointer to member Not yet assigned. How is this less Critical? This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not rejected when not in templates. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against 4.0. The good news is that there are fewer than last week. Earlier today, Andrew Haley posted a small C++ snippet showing an ABI change affect

Re: Problems using cfg_layout_finalize()

Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote: If I do that I run into an infinite loop in fixup_reorder_chain() in its first for loop at: while (NEXT_INSN (insn)) << HERE insn = NEXT_INSN (insn); It looks like there is an undocumented assumption about insn-chains and the rbi->header and

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:06:42PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > Perhaps. But the fundamental problem is that we shouldn't be hashing > > on pointers, and tree-eh.c does just that for finally_tree and > > throw_stmt_table. > >

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 4:31 PM, John David Anglin wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I

Re: call for testers!

> That's probably a relative of the bug that occurs on Darwin. It ought > to be possible to avoid it by using -pipe in TARGET_LIBGCC2_CFLAGS; > could you try that? (I'd like to think that adding -pipe would always > be safe, but who knows what madness might lurk in the HPUX > assembler...) T

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:57:09PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > My head hurts about the GGC implications of opaque pointers in such a > hash table, and retaining pointers in the hash table that have already > been otherwise freed. These are solved problems. Joe has the correct answer to the qu

Re: Major bootstrap time regression on March 30

On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 22:49 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hi, > > We have a bootstrap time regression since March 30. Bootstrap times > on Diego Novillo's SPEC box went up from (an already high) 5500s to > almost 8000s, see: > http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/gcc/gcc-compiler-build-s

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: 20734 rejects valid pointer to member Not yet assigned. How is this less Critical? This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not rejected when not in templates. Clearly this is a judgement call. Howev

Using inline assembly with specific register indices

Hi guys/ladies, I'm currently designing an ISA add-on to the MIPS architecture. My intention is to use it (it is an algorithm accelerator actually) as a COP2 (coprocessor #2). The corresponding microarchitecture is stable (works at register-transfer level, not subject to change). Plus, I would be

Re: Using inline assembly with specific register indices

I was wondering... why not support asm templates THAT ARE NOT string constants??? And I mean for static compilation cases only. For example: asm(instrx $%d, $%d\n",src1,src2 : "=r" (var1) : "r" (var2)); I assume printf-like formating. Or else you may need either write a double-nested switch (a

Re: Using inline assembly with specific register indices

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:24:44AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi guys/ladies, > > I'm currently designing an ISA add-on to the MIPS architecture. My > intention is to use it (it is an algorithm accelerator actually) as a > COP2 (coprocessor #2). The corresponding microarchitecture is stable

Re: Using inline assembly with specific register indices

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:27:00AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was wondering... > > why not support asm templates THAT ARE NOT string constants??? And I > mean for static compilation cases only. > > For example: > > asm(instrx $%d, $%d\n",src1,src2 : "=r" (var1) : "r" (var2)); > > I ass

Re: Using inline assembly with specific register indices

Thanks Daniel! actually my 2 messages were send back-to-back. I have just read both your responses and I can see that i could use stringify approach to force the assembly output of GCC to what I want. Nikolaos Kavvadias

Re: call for testers!

Geoffrey Keating wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Mark Mitchell schrieb: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: 20734 rejects valid pointer to member Not yet assigned. How is this less Critical? This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not rejected when not in templates. Clearly this is

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: 20734 rejects valid pointer to member Not yet assigned. How is this less Critical? This would breaks lots of code, it is template related too as it is not rejected when not in

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Andrew Pinski wrote: Yes it might be a silent miscompiling but there is an easy work around, use a temporary variable In a large sourcebase, even figuring out what's been miscompiled is very hard. It's much easier to deal with a compiler that ICEs than one that silently miscompiles code. unlik

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:26:23 -0700, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are three outstanding bugs (19317, 19312, 18604) assigned to Jason > Merrill, but I didn't hear back from him last week. Jason, I'm going to > assume that you're unable to work on these. As Nathan is on vacation

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Apr 4, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've attached a revised summary of the critical bugs open against 4.0. The good news is that there are fewer than last week. Earlier today, Andrew Haley posted a small C++ snippet showing

Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-04-05)

Jason Merrill wrote: Glad to hear from you; I was afraid something worse than simply too much work had befallen you. There's a patch in the comments for 19317 that just disables the offending optimization. Great; would you please apply that? It seems like our best approach at present. I'll try

Question about "#pragma pack(n)"

Hello! -fpack-struct and #pragma pack(2) are contraditctory instructions.And it seems to be never the intent to allow both.Is there a patch for this? If I want to modify the gcc source code,what should I do? Thanks in advanced, Diterlish __