Phung Nguyen writes:
> Is there any way to change the compilation of a declaration?
> char *s = "abc";
> compiled into
>.section .rodata
> .LCO:
>.ascii "abc\0";
>.section .data
>.align 1
> _s:
>.long .LCO
> I would like to change the last line in the above
Hi all,
Is there any way to change the compilation of a declaration?
char *s = "abc";
compiled into
.section .rodata
.LCO:
.ascii "abc\0";
.section .data
.align 1
_s:
.long .LCO
I would like to change the last line in the above generated code. What
is the hook wh
On 10/18/2010 02:04 PM, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I'm attempting to port some code to gcc, and in a couple of places
> it's using a construct that it doesn't like. A simplified example is
> the following (this is in global scope):
>
> static const int A = 1;
> static const int B = A;
>
> This compil
On 18 October 2010 22:04, Matt Fischer wrote:
> I'm attempting to port some code to gcc, and in a couple of places
> it's using a construct that it doesn't like. A simplified example is
> the following (this is in global scope):
>
> static const int A = 1;
> static const int B = A;
>
> This compil
I'm attempting to port some code to gcc, and in a couple of places
it's using a construct that it doesn't like. A simplified example is
the following (this is in global scope):
static const int A = 1;
static const int B = A;
This compiles fine with g++, but gcc says "error: initializer element
i
It's been a long time since I dealt with this aspect of porting, but
isn't it the case that most ports don't expose branch-on-carry-set
branch-on-carry-clear? It looks like the mn103 was recently changed to
not use cc0, which is definitely a good thing. I'm not sure offhand the
best way to recode
On 10/18/10 09:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
* config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_mult
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
>> 3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
>>
>> 2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
>>
>> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_multipass_dfa_lookahead): Delete.
16.10.2010 14:58, Uros Bizjak kirjoitti:
Trying to use --with-build-sysroot configure option, the build failed
with "error: no include path in which to search for ..." error.
This problem come down to the fact, that -isysroot is ignored when
crosscompiling:
Crosscompiler does not handle -isysr
On 09/30/10 03:04, Alex Turjan wrote:
Hi,
I have 3 questions regarding secondary reload:
1.Is it possible to do the secondary reload via 2 intermediary registers?
As far as I can see the insn that implements the secondary reload has to have 3
operands.
Make the scratch/intermediary register do
On 08/09/10 07:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi Jeff,
I'm looking at the remaining text peepholes (define_peephole instead
of define_peephole2) and I have a few questions about mn10300, that
you are a maintainer of.
I've been out on FMLA, so sorry for the late response...
The first peephole is
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
> 3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack rs6000_issue_rate was added by
>
> 2003-03-03 David Edelsohn
>
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_multipass_dfa_lookahead): Delete.
> (TARGET_SCHED_FIRST_CYCLE_MULTIPASS_DFA_LOOKAHEAD
On 18.10.2010 11:31, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6000_issue_rate lies to scheduler that i
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6000_issue_rate lies to scheduler that it can only issue 1 instruction
before register relocation is do
15 matches
Mail list logo