Re: struggling with make inside GCC MELT

2012-01-11 Thread Mingjie Xing
2012/1/10 Ian Lance Taylor : > Stamp files in make work like this: > > FILE: STAMP-FILE; @true > STAMP-FILE: DEPENDENCIES >        commands to create FILE.tmp >        move-if-change FILE.tmp FILE >        touch $@ > > What this says is: if any of DEPENDENCIES change, then run the commands > to cre

Re: struggling with make inside GCC MELT

2012-01-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11 January 2012 09:08, Mingjie Xing wrote: > 2012/1/10 Ian Lance Taylor : >> Stamp files in make work like this: >> >> FILE: STAMP-FILE; @true >> STAMP-FILE: DEPENDENCIES >>        commands to create FILE.tmp >>        move-if-change FILE.tmp FILE >>        touch $@ >> >> What this says is: if a

GCC mirror

2012-01-11 Thread NetGull Administrator
Hello, I've just set up a new GCC mirror. Information is as follows: URL: http://www.netgull.com/gcc/ Frequency:once a day Location:San Jose, California, United States, North America Contact: ad...@netgull.com Please, add my GCC mirror to your mirror list; for any further clarifi

Re: struggling with make inside GCC MELT

2012-01-11 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Jonathan Wakely writes: > I'm not sure why "@true" is needed, as I think GNU make allows simply > ";" for an empty recipe, maybe Ian can explain that part. The rules I described work for all versions of make. It's quite possible that with GNU make the "@true" is unnecessary. Ian

Re: struggling with make inside GCC MELT

2012-01-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11 January 2012 14:49, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Jonathan Wakely writes: > >> I'm not sure why "@true" is needed, as I think GNU make allows simply >> ";" for an empty recipe, maybe Ian can explain that part. > > The rules I described work for all versions of make.  It's quite Thanks, I wonder

Re: IRA issue with shuffle copies...

2012-01-11 Thread Vladimir Makarov
On 01/10/2012 12:55 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 12:20 -0500, Vladimir Makarov wrote: Do we really need or want to create shuffle copies for insns that do not have a two operand constraint? Yes, I think so. As I remember I did some benchmarking and it gave some "order" in har

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

2012-01-11 Thread Dennis Clarke
> The Go language is closing in what we are calling Go version 1. This > will be a long-term stable release of Go, with no language or library > API changes. Go 1 is described here: > > https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1ny8uI-_BHrDCZv_zNBSthNKAMX_fR_0dc6epA6lztRE per that do

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

2012-01-11 Thread Dennis Clarke
Re "go" for Solaris I see this : http://code.google.com/p/gofrontend/issues/detail?id=6 Not sure what the status in the mainline is but I am willing to do a checkout and build and see what goes wrong. I have 4.6.2 well done on Sparc Solaris 8 and that seems like a good place to start. Denni

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

2012-01-11 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Dennis Clarke writes: > The Go 1 release will be available in source and binary form for at least > these platforms: > > FreeBSD 7+: amd64, 386 > Linux 2.6+: amd64, 386, arm > OS X (Snow Leopard + Lion): amd64, 386 > Windows (2000 + later): amd64, 386 > > Therefore

Re: Difficulty matching machine description to target - any way to specify a minimum register width ?

2012-01-11 Thread Paul S
Thanks Richard, The penny dropped when I read your comment about the % operator. item (2) send me back to the gcc internals document (again !) and I had the problem sorted in about half an hour. Thanks again, Paul. On 06/01/12 08:23, Richard Henderson wrote: On 01/05/2012 10:33 PM, Paul S w