This list is really for the development of GCC, not for getting help in C.
That said ...
On Sep 15, 2010, at 11:15 PM, ir_idjit wrote:
> but whatever i do it i just can't get it to work
> code:
>
> some_header.h:
> static void *(*oper_table)(void **);
That's a pointer to a function taking
i've been writing bits of codes where it requires to have an array or
"pointers to functions", so the decision of which function to execute is
indexed... (i know, a lot of you will say "well, that's a VERY specific of a
solution, there's always the problem of binary compatibility when passing
argu
On Sep 15, 2010, at 2:17 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> FSF *policy* (not the GPL) requires that all files have "GPLv3-or-later"
> license. The question is what permission you need to change a file
> that has a "GPLv2-or-later" license into the required one.
None, the GPL v2 clause grants this right
Thanks for the reply.
I made the changes that you described, but I'm still experiencing the
same behavior--namely that I think that I should see two unexpected
errors since 1) the test case will not compile and 2) the expected
error message is not printed.
Here are the steps to reproduce (assumin
David Daney writes:
> A quick question: What will happen to svn commits tagged with bug
> numbers during this outage? Will bugzilla eventually end up with the
> commit comments we have all come to know and love?
That is the plan, yes.
Ian
On 09/15/2010 01:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
We will be taking bugzilla offline on Friday, September 17, for three
hours starting at 18:00GMT, 11:00PDT
> I do not understand the difference between "redistributing a file
> under a GPLv3-or-later license", and distributing it under a license
> that is GPLv3-or-later".
I'm not sure what the two things you list are, but the two that we're
talking about are:
(1) Distributing a GPLv2-or-later file as
On 9/15/2010 4:59 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't mean to keep this thread alive longer, but that answer is
not to the question we've been discussing. OF COURSE you can
"redistribute" a GPLv2-or-later file under GPLv3-or-later. That's
never been the question!
The question is whether you can
> FYI, quoting Brett Smith on this issue (with permission) below.
>
> When the copyright holder of a program gives you permission to
> "redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either
> version 2 of the Licen
[ about modifying the license of "GPLv2 or later" or similarly licensed
code ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:15:57AM CEST:
> * Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST:
> > > > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused
> > >
Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
We will be taking bugzilla offline on Friday, September 17, for three
hours starting at 18:00GMT, 11:00PDT to do a final database upgrade and
conversion to
Thank you, Georg and Ian.
I misunderstood the section16.2 of gcc internal manual and thought
that the nameless insn (with * ) in .md file can be only used during
rtl-->asm.
The generated code is correct now.
Thanks again!
--
-Qifei Fan
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:27 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
> fanqife
On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:23 AM, Kevin André wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc woul
Greetings,
I'm working on user-defined literals for C++-0x. I've gotten to the
point where I can declare non-template operator"" and call the resulting
function explicitly. I'm working on getting suffixed integers and
floats out of the preprocessor to be parsed.
Before I continue I was won
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
>
>> Is there a way I can rebuild PHI nodes info or what's the best way to
>> keep track of this each time I change the CFG by adding/removing edges
>> and adding new basic blocks?
>
> I found out
fanqifei schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> I am porting gcc to a microprocessor. There are no 64bits instructions
> in it. I added a small logical shift right optimization to the md
> file(see below).
> For the statement “k>>32” in which k is 64bits integer, the
> “define_expand” should fail because op2 is 3
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> Is there a way I can rebuild PHI nodes info or what's the best way to
> keep track of this each time I change the CFG by adding/removing edges
> and adding new basic blocks?
I found out I can avoid the whole issue by scheduling my pass to go just
befo
fanqifei writes:
> I am porting gcc to a microprocessor. There are no 64bits instructions
> in it. I added a small logical shift right optimization to the md
> file(see below).
> For the statement “k>>32” in which k is 64bits integer, the
> “define_expand” should fail because op2 is 32, not 1.
>
Hello,
With my current pass moving things around and creating new BBs in some
test cases, I find that I get the error:
,
| fnmatch.i: In function 'fnmatch':
| fnmatch.i:3: error: missing PHI def
| p_27 = PHI <(20)>
`
Is there a way I can rebuild PHI nodes info or what's the best way to
ke
Jan Hubicka writes:
>
> TODO_rebuild_frequencies only propagate probabilities into frequencies, so
> when you don't
> have probabilities set, it won't help you.
> If you just create such a simple conrolled functions, I guess it is best to
> just
> assign frequencies and probabilities by hand.
>
It doesn't fail on my target, which is based on 4.5 and
has backported this patch. I will have a look at PowerPC.
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Revital1 Eres [mailto:e...@il.ibm.com]
> Sent: 15 September 2010 13:51
> To: Bingfeng Mei
> Subject: RE: Question about alias check in dd
Hi all,
I am porting gcc to a microprocessor. There are no 64bits instructions
in it. I added a small logical shift right optimization to the md
file(see below).
For the statement “k>>32” in which k is 64bits integer, the
“define_expand” should fail because op2 is 32, not 1.
However, I can see the
The old insns_may_alias_p is based checking alias set number. But since
4.5, the new alias oracle doesn't rely the alias set number. may_alias_p()
is a new function based on alias oracle. Essentially, it is same as
true_dependence function but excluding offset and TBAA based disambiguation,
which
Hello,
When trying to compile the following loop with GCC -r164298 with modulo
scheduling pass enabled on PowerPC I get that the inter loop edges
between the memory instructions are created in the DDG although the
following check in ddg.c exists:
static void
add_inter_loop_mem_dep (ddg_ptr g, dd
On 09/15/2010 11:32 AM, g...@raphael.poss.name wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the page at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html suggests that g++ 4.6
> supports range-based "for"
> (http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html);
> however it appears that the construct is actually not
Hi all,
the page at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html suggests that g++ 4.6
supports range-based "for"
(http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html);
however it appears that the construct is actually not recognized in 4.6,
and I could find no support for it in gcc/cp/p
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> > On 9/14/10 8:46 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >>
> >> My current work aims to translate some Gimple into OpenCL source
> >> code, thus providing GCC with the ability to take advantage of
On 09/15/2010 08:54 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Given the current limitations of Gimple, another area to focus on could be
task parallelism (rather than data parallelism). In that case a language
like [Google] Go (via GCC) might make a better talking point than C or
Fortran.
An even better start
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 17:55, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 7:22 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
>>> replace the current frontends entirely.
>>
>> Ye
29 matches
Mail list logo
