I need to define the constant memory address/offset in i386 gcc inline asm,
i.e. immediate value without $ prefix, so I can use it as a constant offset for
some memory address statement.
E.g. I want to access different fields of the same structure through a single
base register containing point
On 2006-02-17, at 23:43, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
Has anybody done timings for gcc bootstrap / cross builds and
regtests with modern multi-core processors? I wonder what a
sensible modern configuration would be for gcc development, but the
the multimedia and games benchmarks I found on the w
Rainer Emrich wrote:
I'm using gmake 3.80 and it's the first time that I see this kind of problem.
As you say there's no such option "-f " in the xgcc command.
The gcc driver has support to convert arbitrary long options into -f
options. So for instance --test-coverage gets converted to
-ft
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Has anybody done timings for gcc bootstrap / cross builds and regtests
> with modern multi-core processors?
>
I've only done very limited testing mostly by eye balling build times.
I don't think build performance scales much beyond -j4/-j6.
I/O is probably the biggest bott
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 03:40:57PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> + htab_t GTY ((param_is (union tree_node))) used_types_hash;
Should be "tree" not the union. You're storing a pointer,
not the union itself.
> +used_types_insert (tree t, struct function *cfun)
Call it something other than cfun
Has anybody done timings for gcc bootstrap / cross builds and regtests
with modern multi-core processors? I wonder what a sensible modern
configuration would be for gcc development, but the the multimedia and
games benchmarks I found on the web neither seem particularily relevant,
nor do they
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060217 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060217/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Olivier Hainque wrote:
>>Mark, is it ok for Olivier to apply the patch mentioned here on
>>4.1?
>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-02/msg00251.html
Yes, thanks.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
Moreover, removing the first test makes libgomp build on targets (as
Tru64) where the -pthread option is required to include pthread.h.
Commited after approval by Alexandre Oliva on IRC. The exact patch
commited is attached.
FX
libgomp.diff
Description: Binary data
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > I think that better to call update_eliminables() somewhere after
> > > > setup_save_areas()
> > >
> > > Exactly. We do that. About 15 lines after the lines you quoted
> > > above.
> > >
> > > What am I missing?
I checked a patch into the ia64-improvements branch to move
Superblock formation to the Tree-SSA level. This patch also brings
an update to the trace formation pass. When building a trace inside
a loop, we now follow the backedge once to add the loop header to the
trace. This allows tail
> As an additional note, this is Bug ada/13408. Although the change
> affects the ADA "ABI"
Note that there is no clear Ada ABI at this stage, and no guarantee of
stability. It's a long term goal to achieve Ada ABI stability, but it's
a huge work.
So changing this is certainly fine.
Arno
> > Mark, is it ok for Olivier to apply the patch mentioned here on
> > 4.1?
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-02/msg00251.html
> >
> > It only affects Ada on PA HP-UX. It's obviously correct.
>
> I'm deferring commits until the set of branches to which I should apply
> is settled.
As
This is somewhat of a gcc-help@ question, but I'll try to help anyway :)
First, did cc1 just do this to you or can you reliably duplicate the
segfault? If you can't duplicate this error, it's probably a sign of a
hardware problem. If you can, then there's a bug in your host
compiler...which i
Olly Betts wrote:
On 2006-02-17, Marcel Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You could create a news URL pointing to Gmane and using the messageid.
http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Definitely, this is the feature that I'd appreciate much at gcc.gnu.org
- having http://gcc.gnu.org/[EMAIL PROT
On 2006-02-17, Marcel Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could create a news URL pointing to Gmane and using the messageid.
> Something like:
>
> news://news.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or for a web version:
http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you're actually reading the list via gmane,
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
> For example cgi-bin/mesg.cgi script of mhonarc mail-to-html
> converter, the one used by gcc.gnu.org, can "extract a message from
> an archive based upon message-id" so having interface to this script
> would be useful. Further the mail client may be taught to get this
Hi all,
libgomp currently doesn't configure well on Tru64 (PR
bootstrap/26161), because the configury is testing the usability of
pthread.h system headers, while on Tru64 this can only work when the
compiler is used with the -pthread option.
While this flag could be added on a per-target basis (i
Hi!
This is gcc.gnu.org question not gcc itself, but I found this list as
most appropriate to ask.
It seems to be a good practice, when composing a message, to refer other
ones using URL like http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-02/msg00295.html.
Thus I wonder if there is a shorter way to match e-m
Perry Smith wrote:
> How do I keep track of the "LTO" design process? I may not be able to
> help 'cause I don't know enough about gcc's internals but I'd like to
> if possible.
I think the best approach is to subscribe to gcc@gcc.gnu.org and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] That's where discussion and patc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John David Anglin schrieb:
>> cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-f "
>
> I don't see any such option in the last xgcc command. What's your
> gmake version? I've seen problems using versions earlier than 3.80.
> The next most likely poss
Rainer wrote:
> The patch proposed by Olivier applied to 4.1 gives 0 failures for the whole
> acats testsuite,
John David wrote:
> While not quite as good as your 4.1.0 results, I had a similar improvement
> on 4.0.3: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00815.html
Many thanks to bo
22 matches
Mail list logo
