Re: 32-bit PowerPC reference test platform

2012-11-06 Thread David Edelsohn
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Ok, does this mean that there is no primary and secondary target in GCC that > covers PowerPC Book E with ELF and EABI? > > If I change something in this area is there at least a well known tertiary > target? > > GCC is used for a lot of F

Hiya! I am looking for for man!

2012-11-06 Thread Jerrome Sallustio
In a nutshell, I'm a university graduate (BBA) and am working as the Logistics Coordinator with the Telegraph Journal. I am an outdoor enthusiast and also enjoy numerous competitive sports. However, I do often enjoy evenings that may simply consist of watching a good movie or just sitting around

Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint

2012-11-06 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 11/06/2012 05:50 PM, Paulo Matos wrote: > I am following your advice and using sched.reorg to remove the > instruction from the ready list. What I am doing is checking the > register written in ready[n_ready - 1] (if any) and look for the > remainder of the ready list for insns writing to the s

RE: Defining scheduling resource constraint

2012-11-06 Thread Paulo Matos
> -Original Message- > From: Bernd Schmidt [mailto:ber...@codesourcery.com] > Sent: 05 November 2012 16:52 > To: Paulo Matos > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Defining scheduling resource constraint > > Depends on why it schedules them in the same cycle. Either there's an > output dep

Re: 32-bit PowerPC reference test platform

2012-11-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 11/06/2012 03:32 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: [...] and I don't have an AIX machine. On which platform should I test to show that changes like this http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02931.html cause no harm? I am not sure w

Re: 32-bit PowerPC reference test platform

2012-11-06 Thread David Edelsohn
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:30 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > what is the reference test platform for the 32-bit PowerPC target? We have > the primary target powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and the secondary target > powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0. On the GCC compile farm there is no AIX available > > http://gc

GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-11-06), Stage 1 is over, Stage 3 in effect immediately

2012-11-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek
Status == The GCC trunk is now in stage3, patches submitted during stage1 may be still accepted, if they don't need significant rewrites, but please try to get them in soon. There is a lot of them outstanding, so please also help reviewing them. Otherwise only bugfixes and documentation fixe

Re: calculation of pi

2012-11-06 Thread Mischa Baars
On 11/05/2012 12:26 PM, David Brown wrote: On 05/11/2012 11:33, Mischa Baars wrote: On 11/05/2012 05:55 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars wrote: On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are diff

Re: Question about aliases

2012-11-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 November 2012 09:23, Alex Markin wrote: > Also, according to the issue 6.5 (7), we cat access to an object value > with expression that has > >> a qualified version of a type compatible with the effective type of the >> object > > So, `const int *' can legally point to the `int *' but not in

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-06 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote: >>> >>> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of >>> reload? Then let's see if we can get there

Question about aliases

2012-11-06 Thread Alex Markin
Hello. I've been watching the sources of aliasing in gcc and found one comment, that seemed to me a bit strange. In file `gcc/alias.c' in function `get_alias_set': > /* From the former common C and C++ langhook implementation: > > Unfortunately, there is no canonical form of a pointer type

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > >> I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to >> major user-visible changes. It wasn't for GCC 4.0, but I'm not suggesting it should be done again. The new C++ parser and ABI in GC

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-06 Thread Florian Weimer
On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote: I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to major user-visible changes. I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other major user visible changes going on. For example, significant improvements in modularit

32-bit PowerPC reference test platform

2012-11-06 Thread Sebastian Huber
Hello, what is the reference test platform for the 32-bit PowerPC target? We have the primary target powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu and the secondary target powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0. On the GCC compile farm there is no AIX available http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm and I don't have an AIX ma