I am looking at an lto bug on ia64-hp-hpux11.23. If I compile
g++.dg/torture/pr33572.C with -flto on this platform I get:
ld: Unsatisfied symbol "__gcc_personality_v0" in file
/var/tmp//ccYlpGzO.ltrans0.ltrans.o
1 errors.
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
(This is using the HP linker which I
m32c-elf, gcc.dg/torture/stackalign/nested-1 at -O0,
produces this code:
_bar.1229:
enter #0
pushm r1,r2,r3,a0,a1
; end of prologue
mov.l a0,r3r1
add.l #-66,sp
stc sp,a1
. . .
ldc a1,sp
; start of epilogue
po
Eric Botcazou schrieb:
What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
Thanks for that definite c
> What does "word" mean here? Is it a 32-bit entity or is it according to
> word_mode which is QImode for avr?
The latter, it is machine-dependent.
> So the same should be true for QI-subregs of scalar modes if
> UNITS_PER_WORT = 1. Right?
Right.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 19:57 +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 25/02/2011 19:21, Kyle Girard wrote:
>
> > I was hoping to see the assignment.
>
> > Looking at the gimple output there is no way to see that 'a' was
> > assigned in bar(). So that it can be used in wik(). Am I
> > misunderstanding someth
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:33:58AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
> >
> >> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to
> >> see
> >> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
> >
> >
On 25/02/2011 19:21, Kyle Girard wrote:
> I was hoping to see the assignment.
> Looking at the gimple output there is no way to see that 'a' was
> assigned in bar(). So that it can be used in wik(). Am I
> misunderstanding something shouldn't there be a way to see the
> assignment in bar? Do I
Paul Koning schrieb:
On Feb 24, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Maybe the misunderstanding occurs when the mode of the subreg is
less than word_size? It would certainly make sense that a
subreg write of less than word_size leaves the bits undefined.
ie, if word_size is SImode and we
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
>
>> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to see
>> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
>
>
> I was hoping to see the assignment. My example might have been a little
> too
> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to see
> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
I was hoping to see the assignment. My example might have been a little
too simple. Here's a slightly more complex example:
foo.hh
clas
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 19:37:27 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 February 2011 17:05, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if
> > you are not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well
> > defined "return value" is in
On 25 February 2011 17:05, Matthias Kretz wrote:
>
> I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if you are
> not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well defined
> "return value" is in the standards, to me as C++ developer the ctor acts as a
> function th
Hi,
I don't generally disagree, that GCC does the correct thing here. I'm
completely satisfied if you don't change GCC.
I'm saying that the way I thought about const + ctor seems logical (if you are
not a compiler developer at least :-) ). Regardless of how well defined
"return value" is in th
Merged as of rev 170439. Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
On 25/02/2011 15:43, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> I fully understand why it happened. So I imply your answer is that ctors do
> not have a return value and my expectation, as explained above, is wrong.
You'd already know if ctors had return values, because you'd have had to be
writing return statem
On 25/02/2011 16:43, Matthias Kretz wrote:
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 16:26:24 Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as
return value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor t
On 25/02/2011 15:20, Kyle Girard wrote:
> foo.hh
> ==
>
> class A
> {
> };
>
> class foo
> {
> A a;
> public:
> void bar(A & aa);
> };
>
>
> foo.cc
> ==
>
> #include "foo.hh"
>
> void foo::bar(A & aa)
> {
> a = aa;
> }
>
>
> However the gimple generated via g++-4.5 -c -fdum
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:56, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Google Summer of Code 2011 will start accepting applications from
> mentoring organizations on 28/Feb. We have until 11/Mar to send our
> application.
>
> If you have ideas for projects for this year and/or would want to
> serve as a mentor, p
Google Summer of Code 2011 will start accepting applications from
mentoring organizations on 28/Feb. We have until 11/Mar to send our
application.
If you have ideas for projects for this year and/or would want to
serve as a mentor, please contact me.
Diego.
Hi,
On Friday 25 February 2011 16:26:24 Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz wrote:
> > My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as
> > return value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor twice for
> > the case of e.g.
> > Foo
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Matthias Kretz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> what are the exact semantics of __attribute__((const)), when attached to a C++
> class constructor, supposed to be?
>
> My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as return
> value, the compiler is free, instea
I have the following code:
foo.hh
==
class A
{
};
class foo
{
A a;
public:
void bar(A & aa);
};
foo.cc
==
#include "foo.hh"
void foo::bar(A & aa)
{
a = aa;
}
However the gimple generated via g++-4.5 -c -fdump-tree-gimple foo.cc
is this:
void foo::bar(A&) (struct foo * co
Hi,
what are the exact semantics of __attribute__((const)), when attached to a C++
class constructor, supposed to be?
My expectation was, that, since the ctor has a constructed object as return
value, the compiler is free, instead of calling a ctor twice for the case of
e.g.
Foo a(1);
Foo b(1)
Hello All,
Even with the help of very nice people and of the gcc@ list, I am unable to
use git for GCC MELT with ease. I tried this entire week without success
My only issue is merging the trunk into GCC MELT but since this is something
I am doing several times a week, it makes me temporaril
Hello,
A question on the stack/frame_tie circuitry for a ppc/V4_abi target, to
check about a potential remaining latent problem in this area.
With gcc 4.3, we had a case where the prologue generation emitted
a sequence like
(insn 191 190 192 9 t.adb:30:8 (set (reg:SI 25 25)
(mem/c:SI (pl
25 matches
Mail list logo
