On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:29 PM, H.J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > When passing _Decimal64 or _Decimal128 to a function via stack, how
> > should they be aligned? Currently, gcc aligns them at 4byte boundary.
> > Is
Jan Hoogerbrugge wrote:
I see however that no code is generated if trimedia_expand_vector_init()
returns 0 and the define_expand FAILs. I also see in other targets that a
vec_init always ends with a DONE. Could it be that vec_init is not allowed to
FAIL?
Grep for "vec_init", and we see that it
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 5:29 PM, H.J. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When passing _Decimal64 or _Decimal128 to a function via stack, how
> should they be aligned? Currently, gcc aligns them at 4byte boundary.
> Is this desirable?
Shouldn't it always be 4 byte aligned because the SysV ABI only talk
When passing _Decimal64 or _Decimal128 to a function via stack, how
should they be aligned? Currently, gcc aligns them at 4byte boundary.
Is this desirable?
H.J.
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080321 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080321/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 14:20 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Luke A. Guest wrote:
> The license for the run-time sources at the FSF is the GMGPL.
> >
> > Can somebody please explain what licences are used for GCC-4.3.x & GNAT?
Good to know, thanks.
Luke.
Luke A. Guest wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering what licences are used for GNAT now that AdaCore
has GNAT-GPL rather than GNAT with GMGPL'd runtime.
It seems that the source - when I last looked - for the runtime was GPL
rather that GMGPL
You were not looking at the sources from the FSF
, but
Hi,
I was just wondering what licences are used for GNAT now that AdaCore
has GNAT-GPL rather than GNAT with GMGPL'd runtime.
It seems that the source - when I last looked - for the runtime was GPL
rather that GMGPL, but I thought that only the FSF could change the
licence of these files?
Can so
## the C flags (without any gcc -I...stuff) to be included in
## compilation of MELT generated C code thru the melt-cc-script
## do not put $(INTERNAL_CFLAGS) $(COVERAGE_FLAGS) $(WARN_CFLAGS) ##there!
MELT_CFLAGS= $(X_CFLAGS) $(T_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) $(XCFLAGS)
But I'm not sure of the T_CFLAGS (i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> 21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>>>
I don't know for sure about libgmp, but the others don't need execstack.
>>> hmm, looks like PR libffi/28036.
>> H
21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>>
>>> I don't know for sure about libgmp, but the others don't need execstack.
>>
>> hmm, looks like PR libffi/28036.
>
>How would this affect libgmp?
pr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>
>> I don't know for sure about libgmp, but the others don't need execstack.
>
> hmm, looks like PR libffi/28036.
How would this affect libgmp?
Andrew.
21/3/2008, "Andrew Haley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał/a:
>I don't know for sure about libgmp, but the others don't need execstack.
hmm, looks like PR libffi/28036.
Paweł Sikora wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I noticed (readelf -lW/grep) that some gcc libraries require executable stack:
>
> /usr/lib64/libffi.so.4.0.1 GNU_STACK 0x00 0x
>0x 0x00 0x00 RWE 0x8
> /usr/lib64/libgcj.so.8.0.0 GNU_STA
14 matches
Mail list logo
