Is there any way to tell cse how many times a value gets reused before
putting a copy in a register is profitable? The logic seems to
compare the address costs, but doesn't account for the cost of storing
in the register. What I'd like is some way of saying the cutoff is N
uses, not the current
Hi,
It appears GCC 3.x no longer supports the
-fvtable-thunks option. Is gcc 3.x using thunks by
default for its vtable format? Also, can the
_G_USING_THUNKS macro no longer used to determine if
thunks are being used?
Thanks,
John
__
Ya
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20051222 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20051222/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi all,
Have the keywords 'auto' and 'decltype' already have been implemented?
- as described in
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1607.pdf?
- for easier use of template expressions.
I have difficulty to find information concerning this problem.
If yes, could you please t
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:28 AM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
I am trying to compile my low-level library, which contains
several inline assembly functions. It doesn't work, because
the compiler (4.0.1) does not replace local labels from the
assembly code (i.e. "0:", "1:", etc.) with their machine-specific
On Dec 22, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Liu Haibin wrote:
I'd like to add some source and header files into gcc. I think I
probably need to make some change in Makefile.in. But the Makefile.in
looks very complicated. Could anyone give some advice on this?
google("make tutorial"). After that, you can just
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 10:08:14AM +0900, 김성박 wrote:
> How can I register gcc build status for HP-UX 11i
>
> I successfully installed gcc3.4.4 & gcc 4.0.0 for hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
> but therer are no build status in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/buildstat.html &
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/buildstat
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 06:13:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I am a bit confused.
>
> Does Gunther's failure mean that the default for the proposed
> --with-build-tools option, should be $prefix/$target/bin? This would
> set AS_FOR_TARGET, etc. from within the GCC_TARGET_TOOL toplevel
> co
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd ge
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
> >assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
> >want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd get if
> >you said "a
It looks to me like this last changed around 2005-06-16 on HEAD, and we
assume that the assembler installed in $prefix is the assembler you
want the compiler to be using - it's the same assembler you'd get if
you said "as", so why shouldn't we use it?
When building from a combined tree, I sti
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:34:14PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> Hello!
>
> The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
> have an unusal setup. The problem in my case is that configure now chooses
> tools from $prefix/bin. It did use tools from $prefix/$target/bin befo
Hello!
The new scheme to select target tools breaks building GCC for me. Maybe I
have an unusal setup. The problem in my case is that configure now chooses
tools from $prefix/bin. It did use tools from $prefix/$target/bin before.
On my setup I have *different* tools in those places. Until know the
Hi Dan,
> I think the right place for this question might have
> been gcc-help (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/).
Thanks to Ben, I've already posted the same question to
gcc-help.
> > [ Why doesn't dynamic_cast work when I dlopen a
> shared library? ]
I've checked out http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.htm
On Dec 22, 2005 02:28 PM, Piotr Wyderski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HOST: AIX, 8 * IBM POWER2 CPU
> COMPILER: GCC 4.0.1, GCC 3.4.4
>
> I am trying to compile my low-level library, which contains
> several inline assembly functions. It doesn't work, because
> the compiler (4.0.1) does not replace
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 02:28:08PM +0100, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> HOST: AIX, 8 * IBM POWER2 CPU
> COMPILER: GCC 4.0.1, GCC 3.4.4
>
> I am trying to compile my low-level library, which contains
> several inline assembly functions. It doesn't work, because
> the compiler (4.0.1) does not replace loc
HOST: AIX, 8 * IBM POWER2 CPU
COMPILER: GCC 4.0.1, GCC 3.4.4
I am trying to compile my low-level library, which contains
several inline assembly functions. It doesn't work, because
the compiler (4.0.1) does not replace local labels from the
assembly code (i.e. "0:", "1:", etc.) with their machine-
Dear gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
Your question was not submitted to the helpdesk because of a problem:
You need to register online at http://ccgi.rowley.co.uk/support/ before you
can submit new questions via e-mail.
Why is this? To provide better tracking of user issues and because we need to
reduce th
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> > Richard Guenther writes:
> > >
> > > So the basic question remains - is pointer overflow defined?
> >
> > No. You've already asked, and it's already been answered, with
> > langauge from the standard. What more
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> >
> > So the basic question remains - is pointer overflow defined?
>
> No. You've already asked, and it's already been answered, with
> langauge from the standard. What more do you want?
Well, nothing - just again clarifi
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> There is:
>
>
>[#5] An integer may be converted to any pointer type.
>Exceptaspreviouslyspecified, the result is
>implementation-defined, might not be correctly aligned,
>might not poin
Richard Guenther writes:
>
> So the basic question remains - is pointer overflow defined?
No. You've already asked, and it's already been answered, with
langauge from the standard. What more do you want?
Andrew.
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> >| Humpf! Can people please cite exact paragraphs of the relevant
> >| Standards? Otherwise, I think we are just adding to the confusion. For
> >| example, in my reading of C99 6.5.9 and C++03 5.10 pointers *can* be
> >| comp
Hi,
I'd like to add some source and header files into gcc. I think I
probably need to make some change in Makefile.in. But the Makefile.in
looks very complicated. Could anyone give some advice on this?
Regards,
Haibin
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> >with no more qualifications (this definition is slightly different in
> >some nearby languages), it is slippery to found optimizations on
> >"pointer overflows."
> >
> >
> Well I think unfortunately the standard does allow
25 matches
Mail list logo
