Expanding an ADDSI3 into 2 x ADDHI3 does not work

I have a fictitious machine which has a word size of 8-bits but can handle 16-bit adds and 16-bit mov's. I am trying to build the most efficient support for handling an addsi3 insn. My problem is that if I try to split up the addsi3 insn into a couple of addhi3 insns (using a define_expand tem

GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

Hi Mark, you wrote > Those who have been watching carefully will note that there is no sign of an > actual > 4.0.1 release. since the branch has been frozen for quite sime time now, a lot of patches for the 4.0 branch have piled up. Given the facts that a) we'll have another relaese candidate

Re: Bug in transparent union handling?

Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This needs to use a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, at minimum. What about a compound literal instead? Giovanni Bajo

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

On 2005-06-15 12:53:26 +1000, Russell Shaw wrote: > Robert Dewar wrote: > >Russell Shaw wrote: > >>The original bug was about testing the equality of doubles. I > >>think that's just plain mathematically bad. Error bands should be > >>used to test for "equality", using a band that is in accordance

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: Testing and bug reporting are ways people can contribute to GCC if they haven't the time or knowledge to effect repairs themselves. Sure GCC isn't special; all areas of specialized knowledge have steep learning curves, and I'm certain I could find applications that w

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: No, what they do is redefine the bug such that it is no longer a bug. Certain U.S. Presidents are quite fond of this tactic, recategorizing things to avoid dealing with them. Bug 323 is an example of how GCC does this. I don't know of any example of this. That is a cas

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Laurent GUERBY wrote: At AdaCore (I assume it's still the rule), a patch was allowed to be committed only *after* a special run of the regression tester with CVS source baseline + only your patch showed a clean run (it was all automated so you just had to provide a clean patch to the system).

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

Mike Stump wrote: > Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms? Apart from what's been pointed out by RTH, you might also want to read the messages from the previous discussion on this subject initiated by Stan Shebs, if you haven't already: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00070

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Marcin Dalecki wrote: > Sorry but I just got completely fed up by the references to "math" by > the original post, since the authors leak of basic experience in the > area of numerical computation was more then self evident. My apologies for not meeting your high intellectual standards, ;P > Maki

Re: Expanding an ADDSI3 into 2 x ADDHI3 does not work

If I use: (define_expand "addsi" addsi3 "{ emit_insn (gen_addhi3 (custom_subword(operands[0], 0, SImode), custom_subword(operands[1], 0, SImode), custom_sub

Re: Software pipelining capabilities

> Vasanth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am using powerpc-eabi-gcc (3.4.1) and trying to retarget it for a > fully pipelined FPU. I have a DFA model for the FPU. I am looking at > the code produced for a simple FIR algorithm (a loop iterating over an > array, with a multiply-add operation per iterati

Bug related to floating-point traps?

I don't know if this is a bug in gcc or the glibc... Consider the following program "traps1": #define _GNU_SOURCE #include #include #include #include int main (int argc, char *argv[]) { volatile long double x, y = 0.0; if (argc != 3) { fprintf (stderr, "Usage: exception \n");

Re: Bug related to floating-point traps?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 03:14:59PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I don't know if this is a bug in gcc or the glibc... Consider the > following program "traps1": > > #define _GNU_SOURCE > #include > #include > #include > #include > > int main (int argc, char *argv[]) > { > volatile long do

po file update

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:47PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Right now, the libstdc++ versioning/ABI situation is is all that stands > between us and 4.0.1 RC2, now that Jakub has fixed the GLIBC miscompilation. Weren't we waiting for the updated po files (at least for the translations that w

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

--- Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > > >Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms? > > > > Didn't RTH objected the last time? > > One has to do a less gr

Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Stimulated by the discussion about fixing bugs and frustrated potential developers, I thought it could be useful to briefly share my recent experience of frustrated bug reporter with the subscribers of this list. Until the recent past, I have never given up investigating any suspicious behavior

Re: Bug related to floating-point traps?

On 2005-06-15 15:45:34 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > The exception flags are sticky. So you get the exception because > operations before feenableexcept set the overflow flag. I know that the flags are sticky. But I thought the traps were linked to the FP operations only (not to the flags). > T

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) I submit a bug report; > 2) someone looks at it superficially, too superficially, and > posts a comment that tends to deny there is a problem; > 3) I and/or someone else explain that the problem is indeed > there, possibly citing the points o

Re: mudflap cache question

Hi - Herman ten Brugge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > I looked at the code in mf-runtime.c and found the cache > functions. The code [...] > __mf_uncache_object (__mf_object_t *old_obj) > [...] > unsigned idx_low = __MF_CACHE_INDEX (low); > unsigned idx_high = __MF_CACHE_IND

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Agreed. But keep in mind that it is not necessary to reply: once the bug is > open and confirmed, the last comment "wins", in a way. If the bugmaster > wanted to close it, he would just do it, so an objection in a comment does > not make the bug invalid per se. But an object

Re: po file update

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:47PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > Right now, the libstdc++ versioning/ABI situation is is all that stands > > between us and 4.0.1 RC2, now that Jakub has fixed the GLIBC miscompilation. > > Weren't we waiting for the u

Re: Bug in transparent union handling?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:11:23AM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > This needs to use a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, at minimum. > > What about a compound literal instead? I suppose. Why? r~

Re: strange double comparison results with -O[12] on x86(-32)

On 2005-06-13 19:41:23 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: > > > ... or it's a bug in the libc/crt-startup, which is where the > >hardware rounding mode is (or should be) set up ... > > Well if you think that the operations should reflect IEEE 64-bit > semantics (which is the only ratio

Re: strange double comparison results with -O[12] on x86(-32)

On 2005-06-15 17:45:59 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > With value = 1: Sorry, I forgot the following explanation: when the program is compiled with: -DMODE= [ -DCR=1 ] -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 6/15/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > Agreed. But keep in mind that it is not necessary to reply: once the bug is > > open and confirmed, the last comment "wins", in a way. If the bugmaster > > wanted to close it, he would just do it, so an objection in

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> > > Agreed. But keep in mind that it is not necessary to reply: once the bug is > > > open and confirmed, the last comment "wins", in a way. If the bugmaster > > > wanted to close it, he would just do it, so an objection in a comment does > > > not make the bug invalid per se. > > > > But an o

copyright assignment

REQUEST: SEND FORM FOR PAST AND FUTURE CHANGES [What is the name of the program or package you're contributing to?] GCC, the GNU Compiler Collection [Did you copy any files or text written by someone else in these changes? Even if that material is free software, we need to know about it.] No [Do

RE: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Original Message >From: Scott Robert Ladd >Sent: 14 June 2005 15:51 > In many ways, I see GCC as similar in model to the Red Cross. You have a > paid staff that handles the day-to-day business, Really? "GCC" has "paid staff"? Who are they? How much does "GCC" pay them? Where's the

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Richard Guenther wrote: > On 6/15/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>But an objection from one of the bugmasters *is* enough to keep people >>from presenting a patch. > > How do you come to this conclusion? From my experience this > is untrue - bugs get fixed because either someon

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: Mark has a valid concern: Why aren't bugs being fixed? One answer is: The GCC community is often less than welcoming, friendly, and helpful. You may not like or believe the answer, but if you want more people to help GCC for free, an attitude adjustment may be required

help using mingw/gcc

Hello, I'm trying to compile a simple program with gcc on windows and am getting really frustrated. I've tried entering the commands in command prompt (no ms-dos mode, I have XP) and Run, but can't get anything, mostly something like "no such directory" or "gcc is not a valid command". Any sugg

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Wednesday 15 June 2005 18:13, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Mark has a valid concern: Why aren't bugs being fixed? Maybe the people who work a lot on GCC just don't hear enough about those bug reports. I for one will admit to not looking at bugzilla often enough. I like the Wiki regressions page

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Dave Korn wrote: > Perhaps I've missed something here, because I'm mystified how you could > think that gcc development is conducted by an organisation with full-time > staff. Perhaps not a formal staff, but there is a core group of developers whose incomes are closely tied to GCC development. M

Re: help using mingw/gcc

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:31:40AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, I'm trying to compile a simple program with gcc on windows and am > getting really frustrated. I've tried entering the commands in command > prompt (no ms-dos mode, I have XP) and Run, but can't get anything, > mostly s

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Giovanni Bajo wrote: | > Agreed. But keep in mind that it is not necessary to reply: once the bug is | > open and confirmed, the last comment "wins", in a way. If the bugmaster | > wanted to close it, he would just do it, so an objection in a comment

Re: po file update

Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:47PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Right now, the libstdc++ versioning/ABI situation is is all that stands between us and 4.0.1 RC2, now that Jakub has fixed the GLIBC miscompilation. Weren't we wa

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Richard Guenther wrote: | > On 6/15/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | >>But an objection from one of the bugmasters *is* enough to keep people | >>from presenting a patch. | > | > How do you come to this conclusion? From my experie

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | But an objection from one of the bugmasters *is* enough to keep people > | from presenting a patch. > > Well, I'm not sure. If the report is closed, then you're right. > However, if the report is not closed, then I think

RE: help using mingw/gcc

Original Message >From: Jonathan Wakely >Sent: 15 June 2005 17:45 > On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:31:40AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Hello, I'm trying to compile a simple program with gcc on windows and am >> getting really frustrated. I've tried entering the commands in command >>

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 6/15/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | But an objection from one of the bugmasters *is* enough to keep people > > | from presenting a patch. > > > > Well, I'm not sure. If the report is closed, then

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Richard Guenther wrote: > May I turn this into a suggestion: don't be scared away by negative > comments of one of the bugmasters, instead continue working on a > patch; you are definitely encouraged to do so! And if not the > bugmasters, other people affected by the bug will be grateful! It's i

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

chris jefferson wrote: > Working code is also of course by far the most convincing argument > :). Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this the "Bicycle shed effect." I agree. Prel

4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

Mark: I cannot build and use (link, etc.) 64-bit shared libraries on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0 with gcc version 4.0.1 20050615 (prerelease). This is a regression from 4.0.0 on the same platform. I couldn't come up with a short example, sorry, but it is easy to reproduce if you hav

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote: Mark: I cannot build and use (link, etc.) 64-bit shared libraries on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0 with gcc version 4.0.1 20050615 (prerelease). This is a regression from 4.0.0 on the same platform. This is not a regression, in fact in the

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Jun 15, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jun 15, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote: Mark: I cannot build and use (link, etc.) 64-bit shared libraries on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0 with gcc version 4.0.1 20050615 (prerelease). This is a regression from 4.0.0 on the

RE: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Original Message >From: Scott Robert Ladd >Sent: 15 June 2005 18:24 > a negative comment by a bugmaster makes it less likely that > my efforts on that bug will bear fruit. No, it doesn't. You seem to be under the impression that bugmasters have some kind of "power" or "authority" ove

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> No, it doesn't. You seem to be under the impression that bugmasters have > some kind of "power" or "authority" over what does and doesn't happen and > which patches will or will not be accepted. I think this is a > misunderstanding; it doesn't matter what some bugmaster says or doesn't > say,

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

* Gabriel Dos Reis: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Giovanni Bajo wrote: > | > Agreed. But keep in mind that it is not necessary to reply: once the bug > is > | > open and confirmed, the last comment "wins", in a way. If the bugmaster > | > wanted to close it, he would just

Re: po file update

Joseph S. Myers wrote: > I submitted it to the TP a week ago. Sorry it took so long. Karl is on vacation, and I was busy with other stuff. Please verify whether the merge indeed had the desired effect. > Perhaps there is some problem with the updating of the TP site? Also that. DIRO (UMontreal

Re: help using mingw/gcc

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2005 18:31 : > Hello, I'm trying to compile a simple program with gcc on windows and am > getting really frustrated. I've tried entering the commands in command > prompt (no ms-dos mode, I have XP) and Run, but can't get anything, > mostly something lik

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 07:35 AM, Graham Stott wrote: they had inline asms that spaned several pages of A4 with emmbeded labels, control flow, and other cruff which was why it ended up being so gross. Also when combined with C++ Templates even the upfront parsing of the asm gets hairy

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 10:08 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: Didn't RTH objected the last time? One has to do a less gross job of it than Red Hat did. I did go back and re-reread all the useful content you, and others gave. I did expect that all past concerns raised remain and that we'

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

On 2005-06-15, at 13:50, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: Perhaps my understanding of math isn't as elite as yours, but I do know that "worser" isn't a word. ;) Please bear with me. English is my 3th foreign language. Only the following options would make sense: 1. An option to declare 100% IEEE

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To support different expectations, I suggest defining the following > floating-point options for GCC. This is a conceptual overview; once > there's a consensus the categories, I'll propose something more formal. > > -ffp-correct > > This option foc

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yes, it's still the rule :-) and we have about 10,000 test directories > now, many with a lot of code (it's many millions of lines in all, a > good thing that machines are getting faster). In fact our test suite > seems to take somewhat over an hour to e

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-15 21:22:38 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Not necessarily, wrongly closed reports are reopened in my experience Not all of them, e.g. bug 323 (yes, again). -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 15, 2005, at 6:14 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2005-06-15 21:22:38 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: Not necessarily, wrongly closed reports are reopened in my experience Not all of them, e.g. bug 323 (yes, again). But if you look how old it is, it is before really any bugmaster starte

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 00:14, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-15 21:22:38 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Not necessarily, wrongly closed reports are reopened in my experience > > Not all of them, e.g. bug 323 (yes, again). Please make this thread die, you've all made your points by now, do

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 06:29 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: Doesn't that need support to parse assembly? CW asm support needed this. I'd expect that MS asms would too, but I'm not an expert, yet. That support is substantially less support than gas.

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 06:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote: Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms? Mike, you're going to get more useful feedback if you ask a

Re: Visual C++ style inline asms

On Thursday 16 June 2005 00:45, Mike Stump wrote: > If someone wanted to describe MS asms in detail, I'd be interested. > Maybe the wiki would be a good place to home it. I'm interested too, but wouldn't that be something _you_ could do to show what we're actually talking about? :-) Putting the c

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-15 21:22:38 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: | > Not necessarily, wrongly closed reports are reopened in my experience | | Not all of them, e.g. bug 323 (yes, again). Vincent, please. -- Gaby

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Marcin Dalecki wrote: > Please bear with me. English is my 3th foreign language. No offense intended, You're lucky you haven't been subjected to my Spanish... my wife cringes. > You should always place Java last in discussions about numerical work. > It's largely irrelevant in this area due to th

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote: I cannot build and use (link, etc.) 64-bit shared libraries on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0 with gcc version 4.0.1 20050615 > (prerelease). If you remove the # that comment out the -m64 multilibs, does it then work perfectly?

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

> 1. Benjamin Kosnik reports that there are ABI and/or version-symbol > problems between 3.4.x and 4.0.x version of libstdc++, and is trying to > sort out a solution. I think I have found an acceptable solution for this issue. Here is more info: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-06/msg013

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Jun 15, 2005, at 7:12 PM, Mike Stump wrote: On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 11:19 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote: I cannot build and use (link, etc.) 64-bit shared libraries on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0 with gcc version 4.0.1 20050615 > (prerelease). If you remove the # that comment out

Re: Bug in transparent union handling?

Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> This needs to use a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, at minimum. >> >> What about a compound literal instead? > > I suppose. Why? Nothing specifically. I just believe it is a cleaner way to transform the argument into an aggregate, casts are ugly. Giovanni Baj

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

James A. Morrison wrote: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Yes, it's still the rule :-) and we have about 10,000 test directories now, many with a lot of code (it's many millions of lines in all, a good thing that machines are getting faster). In fact our test suite seems to take somewh

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 06:37 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote: The reasons given for disabling ppc64 multilib instead of java on darwin were I think it might be possible to use GNU make to setup the MULTILIB options depending upon wether or not LANGUAGES (CONFIG_LANGUAGES) includes java. I