"Amker.Cheng" writes:
> I also tried the code on x86-cygwin, which prints 0x.
> I am wondering why __aeabi_d2uiz returns 0 for negative double values.
> Is this behavior defined by arm fpu and it's different with x86 in fpu
> implementation?
Converting a negative float value to an unsign
Hi,
In my port I have an error: Before ira I have the following insn:
(insn 3859 4277 4366 57 (set (reg:BI 2038)
(subreg:BI (reg/v:SI 181 [ realsz ]) 3)) 76 {movbi}
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 1 [0x1])
(nil)))
During ira this insn is transformed (I guess because reg 181
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I would propose to clarify as:
>>
>> "To ensure that GCC finds the GNU assembler (or the GNU linker),"
> I see no harm in that change, Gerald, what do you think?
Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years ago, but these
days using linker is
> Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years ago, but these
> days using linker is a lot more natural and common (as a grep in gcc/doc
> confirms, too).
Even 20 years ago, I think "linker" would have been the more natural
word. I remember "linker" from my IBM days in the early 80's.
On a CentOS box with:
# uname -a
Linux xx 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 5
17:53:09 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
# gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-48)
and using:
Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT).
as well as numerical software I have written, all in C++, I am
This is the beta release of binutils 2.21.51.0.9 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2011 0507 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
On 5/8/2011 10:54 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
On a CentOS box with:
# uname -a
Linux xx 2.6.18-194.32.1.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 5
17:53:09 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
# gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-48)
and using:
Template Numerical Toolkit (TNT).
as well as num
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dewar [mailto:de...@adacore.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:13
> To: Michael D. Berger
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelevant code change
>
[...]
>
> This kind of result is quite expected on an x86 using th
On 5/8/2011 8:25 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Robert Dewar [mailto:de...@adacore.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:13
To: Michael D. Berger
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelevant code change
[...]
This kind of result is q
Quoting "Michael D. Berger" :
How does the extra precision lead to the variable result?
Also, is there a way to prevent it? It is a pain in regression testing.
Please read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323
--
Michael D. Berger
m.d.ber...@ieee.org
http://www.rosemike.net/
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of Tim Prince
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 11:38
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelev
On 5/8/2011 12:48 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
I made the changes you suggest. While I was previously getting
-1.16e-16 and -1.03e-16 depending presence of an "extra"
class member, I now get 1.11e-16 (sic not -). But it is now independent of
the extra class member, which is excellent. Hopeful
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Dewar [mailto:de...@adacore.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 13:02
> To: Michael D. Berger
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: numerical results differ after irrelevant code change
>
> On 5/8/2011 12:48 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
>
> > I made the
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20110508 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20110508/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 5/8/2011 3:01 PM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
As I should have said originally, I just did the
-march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse, I didn't change
to a 64 bit system. Will that get the repeatabiility?
It has on the brief test I did.
Right, if you specify sse, you get totally different
floating-poin
Gerald Pfeifer wrote, On 08/05/11 14:02:
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I would propose to clarify as:
"To ensure that GCC finds the GNU assembler (or the GNU linker),"
I see no harm in that change, Gerald, what do you think?
Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years
Dave Korn wrote, On 07/05/11 16:01:
On 06/05/2011 09:00, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
The difference is that with -E the -o option is passed to cc1, whereas
without it the -o option is passed to the assembler or the linker. The
GNU assembler and linker both have the usual Un
On 5/8/2011 6:23 PM, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
Would it be useful to have an option to enable warning if there are
duplicates?
From my point of view, I feel that not warning duplicates may let
mistakes in the way gcc is invoked slip through, e.g. assist tracking
down these issues in makefiles.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Andre Majorel wrote:
> Yesterday, I spent an hour looking for the C99 and C++0x status
> pages in http://gcc.gnu.org/,
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>
> Apparently, the shortest path to the latter is
>
> "Releases"
>
Hi Ian , you have helped to narrow my search but still finding it . . .
Ian Lance Taylor-3 wrote:
>
> ankit writes:
>
>> Problem Statement : Given a C file which has several macros defined (eg.
>> #define MACRO 10) . I need to know what all macros are defined and their
>> usage point(eg. l
20 matches
Mail list logo
