Hello All,
I am working on 32-bit target with gcc 4.6.0. I need some help on the following:
For my target, If my CCR register is set, all the arithmetic
instructions update the CC register else the don't update.
Setting the CCR register is done by a built-in function.
Can any one help how to pro
On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It turns out that x32 needs R_X86_64_64. One major reason is
> the displacement range of x32 is -2G to +2G. It isn't a problem
> for compiler since only small model is required for x32.
>
> However, to address 0 to 4G directly in assembly
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110811 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110811/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> -ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Gaby writes:
> Yes!
Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
subtraction, and then convert the result to signed? This would then guarantee
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> -ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Yes!
-- Gaby
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
>>> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
>>> pointers point to elements of the same a
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> int x,y;
> int main ()
> {
> char *a, *b;
> __INTPTR_TYPE__ w;
> if (x)
> a = 0x7ffe;
> else
> a = 0x7fff;
> if (y)
> b = 0x8001;
> else
> b = 0x8000;
> w = b - a;
> return w;
> }
>
> indeed traps with
Jed Davis writes:
>
> But is that the right way to do that, do people think? Or should I
> look into making this its own -mcmodel option? (Which would raise the
I would make it a new -mcmodel=... option.
> question of what to call it -- medsmall? smallhigh? altkernel?) Or is
smallhigh sounds
Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 19:15:41 schrieb Richard Guenther:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
> >> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if
> >> both pointers point to elements of t
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
>> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
>> pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
>> of the array. According
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
> pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
> of the array. According to this 0x8000 - 0x7FFF should be a valid
>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Florian Merz wrote:
> Thanks for your reply Richard, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, yet.
> :-)
> If I'm right, then the problem I'm refering to doesn't require large objects.
>
> See below for more.
>
> Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 17:48:26 schrieb Richa
Hello all,
I was making some modifications to picochip port and ran into a problem
with cse within reload and I think it is a bug. Can someone familiar
with reload let me know if it is indeed a bug. The c testcase that
caused the problem was
gcc-4.6.0/gcc/testsuite/./gcc.c-torture/execute/9912
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the ARM toolchain for our
>> Android build. I recently built an Android Native-code Development Kit
>> with GCC 4.6.1 and binut
Thanks for your reply Richard, but I'm not satisfied with your answer, yet. :-)
If I'm right, then the problem I'm refering to doesn't require large objects.
See below for more.
Am Thursday, 11. August 2011, 17:48:26 schrieb Richard Guenther:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Florian Merz wrote
This brings the second part of the streamer refactoring. I'm
going to be doing frequent merges in the next little while to
avoid big conflicts.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Florian Merz wrote:
> Dear gcc developers,
>
> this is about an issue that popped up in a verification project [1] based on
> LLVM, but it seems to be already present in the gimple code, before llvm-gcc
> transforms the gimple code to LLVM-IR.
>
> In short:
> Calcu
Dear gcc developers,
this is about an issue that popped up in a verification project [1] based on
LLVM, but it seems to be already present in the gimple code, before llvm-gcc
transforms the gimple code to LLVM-IR.
In short:
Calculating the difference of two pointers seems to be treated by gcc a
On 08/11/2011 04:49 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
code without includes and all options). In this case I cou
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 04:05:25PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We (Mozilla) are trying to get the best of the ARM toolchain for our
> Android build. I recently built an Android Native-code Development Kit
> with GCC 4.6.1 and binutils 2.21.53, instead of GCC 4.4.3 and binutils
> 2.19 that
On 08/08/11 21:35, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> In a way I like the current scheme since it is simple and extending it
> should IMO have some good reason. We could refine -Os behaviour without
> changing current predicates to optimize
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
> code without includes and all options). In this case I could have more info
> to say more definitely about the reason of the problem in IRA.
>
Let me add another
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
>> I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
>> code without includes and all options). In this case I could have more info
>> to say more definitely
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> I can not reproduce the problem. It would be nice to give all info (the
> code without includes and all options). In this case I could have more info
> to say more definitely about the reason of the problem in IRA.
>
One of the issue wi
24 matches
Mail list logo
