> > The "insv" pattern *already* does this. It just doesn't support the
> > one-bit-bitfield case.
>
> - which was your point of being unnecessarily restrictive?
Yes. There's special code in there to disable insv if the bitfield
happens to be one bit in size.
> From: DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> - so then any valid width bit-field should be considered a
>> correspondingly valid const and/or volatile bit-field, which may
>> potentially be more efficiently accessed as a function of a target's
>> specific ISA?
>
> The "insv" pattern *already* does th
> - so then any valid width bit-field should be considered a
> correspondingly valid const and/or volatile bit-field, which may
> potentially be more efficiently accessed as a function of a target's
> specific ISA?
The "insv" pattern *already* does this. It just doesn't support the
one-bit-bitfi
> From: DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> As it would seem that as HW control/I/O registers are often
>> typically mapped into a processor's data memory address space,
>> they may be correspondingly addressable via a read/mask/write as
>> any N bit field may be?
>
> In the case of the m32c
> As it would seem that as HW control/I/O registers are often
> typically mapped into a processor's data memory address space,
> they may be correspondingly addressable via a read/mask/write as
> any N bit field may be?
In the case of the m32c, it has a *lot* of single-bit I/O ports, and
Richard Henderson writes:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:40:20PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-09/msg00064.html
> > So... why is it illegal to put a constant into a single bit field?
>
> Probably because it was more efficient to use some other pattern
> for some other tar
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 09:40:20PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> So... why is it illegal to put a constant into a single bit field?
Probably because it was more efficient to use some other pattern
for some other target.
But there's absolutely zero chance you can reliably use a volatile
bit field to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Compiler version: 3.4.4
Platform: mips-sgi-irix6.5
configure flags:
- --prefix=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/IRIX64/mips-sgi-irix6.5/install
- --with-gnu-as
- --with-as=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/IRIX64/mips-sgi-irix6.5/install/bin/as
- --with-ld=/usr/bin/ld --disable-sh
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Compiler version: 3.4.4
Platform: hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00
configure flags:
- --prefix=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install
- --with-gnu-as
- --with-as=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/bin/as
- --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the
| installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems).
|
I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries
are alway
10 matches
Mail list logo