Re: Modifying ARM code generator for elimination of 8bit writes - need help

2006-07-21 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 03:27:49PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > (define_expand "reload_outqi" > [(clobber (match_operand:QI 0 "memory_operand" "=Q")) >(clobber (match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "=&r")) >(set (match_dup 4) (match_dup 5)) >(parallel [ >(set (match_

Re: Gcov: Counting lines of source code (untested files) as gcov does

2006-07-21 Thread Fredrik Johansson
Apparently I forgot to CC this to the list last time, so here is a new attempt! Fredrik, if you can modify the source: if any line in a source file is touched, you'll get a .da file. So you could add a dummy routine to each file and call them all at startup. That will be an easier project than

Re: Modifying ARM code generator for elimination of 8bit writes - need help

2006-07-21 Thread Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
On Thu, Jul 20, 2006 at 04:37:41PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: > ;; This is primarily a hack for the Nintendo DS external RAM. > (define_insn "_arm_movqi_insn_swp" > [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "reg_or_Qmem_operand" "=r,r,r,Q,Q") > (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand" "rI,K,m,r,r"

c++ variable-length array?

2006-07-21 Thread Neal Becker
Using gcc-4.1.1. Info says variable-length array is supported in c++ mode, but doesn't seem to work: #include #include template void F (in_t const& in, int size, int x[size]) {} void G (std::vector const& in, int size, int x[size]) {} int main () { std::vector i (10); int x (10); F (i,

Fortran fail on 4.0 branch

2006-07-21 Thread Andreas Krebbel
Hi, my daily build for s390(x) still shows the 2 following gfortran testcases failing on the 4.0 branch: actual_array_constructor_2.f90 (#28167) actual_array_substr_2.f90 (#28174) Both were committed with rev. 115186 for gcc 4.1 and with rev. 115185 for 4.0 by Alexandre Oliva. The patch

Re: Fortran fail on 4.0 branch

2006-07-21 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 7/21/06, Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Is there a fix for 4.0? If not, should we remove the testcases or mark them as xfail - just to polish the test summary a bit ;-) IMHO backporting any fortran patches to 4.0 is a waste of time. There are so many known bugs in the gfortran th

Re: MIPS RDHWR instruction reordering

2006-07-21 Thread Atsushi Nemoto
On 19 Jun 2006 16:45:43 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure, because I'm not sure what is hoisting the instruction. > > I tried recreating this, but I couldn't. I get this: > > foo: > .frame $sp,0,$31 # vars= 0, regs= 0/0, args= 0, gp= 0 >

Re: MIPS RDHWR instruction reordering

2006-07-21 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Atsushi Nemoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And with r108713 I got: > > foo: > .frame $sp,0,$31 # vars= 0, regs= 0/0, args= 0, gp= 0 > .mask 0x,0 > .fmask 0x,0 > .setnoreorder > .cpload $25 > .setnomacro > >

Re: c++ variable-length array?

2006-07-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Jul 21, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Neal Becker wrote: Using gcc-4.1.1. Info says variable-length array is supported in c+ + mode, but doesn't seem to work Nope, sure doesn't. I don't recall any good reason why we can't support it. I'd file a bug report for it. Being able to compile c99 style

gcc-4.1-20060721 is now available

2006-07-21 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060721 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060721/ 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