On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:04 PM, koala01 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to compile the gcc-4.8.0-20130217 snapshot with (eg) the last
> version of isl.
>
> This version has a bug fix which make that isl_version() returns
> "isl-1.11.1", as result that configure script fails to detect isl because it
Hi,
The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very interesting
to have such functionality of compiler even without LTO. It could be
changed, if for
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov
wrote:
> Hi,
> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object. Of course,
> no such problems if we could utilized LTO. And it is very interesting
> to have such fu
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system
where the registers are 64 bits long?
I was looking at AArch64 and wondering about whether it mightn't be
better for a 32 bit system than AArch32 if all the pointers were 32 bit,
and as far as the ABI is concerned half the
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 04:00:52PM +0400, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote:
> Hi,
> The current implementation of IPACP doesn't allowed to clone function
> if caller(s) to that function is located in another object.
That is not exactly true. With -fipa-cp-clone (default at -O3),
IPA-CP is happy to c
On 6 March 2013 12:38, David McQuillan wrote:
> Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
> the registers are 64 bits long?
Yes, the new x32 ABI for x86_64, see
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ and
http://lwn.net/Articles/456731/
David McQuillan writes:
> Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system
> where the registers are 64 bits long?
x32.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something c
On 03/05/2013 08:00 PM, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that you can't put a branch instruction in the
delay slot of a branch instruction?
Semantically, the HW I'm looking at annuls the branch in the delay slot if the
first branch is taken, but any other instructions are
On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:38 AM, David McQuillan wrote:
> Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
> the registers are 64 bits long?
MIPS (N32 ABI, and if you want, also O64) is another example.
paul
On 03/06/2013 07:21 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 6, 2013, at 7:38 AM, David McQuillan wrote:
Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where
the registers are 64 bits long?
MIPS (N32 ABI, and if you want, also O64) is another example.
The PA2.0 chips w
Status
==
We've reached the goal of zero P1 regressions again, and have less
than 100 P1-P3 bugs, but the number of changes going daily is still too
high. If no new P1 appears within a week, I'd like to create first
release candidate in the middle of next week, but please try to decrease
the
Am 04.03.2013 21:34, schrieb N.M. Maclaren:
(quoting documentation about DEC UNIONs for Fortran)
"However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
that portion of the initial variable is retained that is not overlaid.
Depending on the application, the retained portion of an o
>> "However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
>> that portion of the initial variable is retained that is not overlaid.
>> Depending on the application, the retained portion of an overlaid variable
>> may or may not contain meaningful data and can be utilized at a later
>>
On Mar 6 2013, Russell Brennan wrote:
Ouch.
This seems to be at odds with C's unions, where it is not allowed to do
type punning.
As of gcc 4.4.6, the description above seems to match the C behavior:
Er, no. One simple test does not prove that it will always work; this
sort of thing is mos
Perhaps I misunderstand how you are defining failure here... what
would be the failure mode? Perhaps if you could provide an example of
the ill-effects that could be seen as a result of this behavior it
would clarify the issue?
v/r,
Russell
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 04.03.2013 21:34, schrieb N.M. Maclaren:
>
> (quoting documentation about DEC UNIONs for Fortran)
>
>> "However, if you overlay one variable with another smaller variable,
>> that portion of the initial variable is retained that is not ove
On Mar 6 2013, Russell Brennan wrote:
Perhaps I misunderstand how you are defining failure here... what
would be the failure mode? Perhaps if you could provide an example of
the ill-effects that could be seen as a result of this behavior it
would clarify the issue?
Generating bad code. In:
Doing a bit more light reading on type-punning wrt unions I came upon
the following (from
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gcc/Structures-unions-enumerations-and-bit_002dfields-implementation.html#Structures-unions-enumerations-and-bit_002dfields-implementation):
"""
- A member of a union o
On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
any time soon.
This is a documented exception to the aliasing/type punning rules.
The problem is that this is worse tha
On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
> > extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
> > any time soon.
> > This is a documented exception to the aliasi
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 11:46 AM, N.M. Maclaren wrote:
> On Mar 6 2013, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>>
>> Except GCC implements C's unions as allowing to do type punning as an
>> extension and as far as GCC is concerned that is not going to change
>> any time soon.
>> This is a documented exception to
Thanks for that about the MIPS and PA. Gosh now I feel rather silly, I
remember doing something like this years and years ago in a company I
was in at the time with MIPS and PowerPC but it was roll our own rather
than gcc. Parameters were passed on stack at the size they were rather
than widene
This is now bugzilla 56558.
Thierry Moreau wrote:
Hi,
The C++ template code in annex triggers a
compile-time error on 4.2, 4.4, 4.6, but not on 4.7. (I suppose this bug
has been found and tracked before.)
===
template class t1
{
public:
int length;
I'm using the CCmode model for condition-code handling in a 4.6.1 based
compiler. Every other port I've done used the CC0 model, so I'm probably doing
something misguided here.
I'm down to just 170 failures in the check-gcc testsuites, so it's looking
pretty solid; of the failures about 30 are
I am not a fan of the new definition of a regression. Yes the new
definition helps out release managers but it does not help out our
users at all. In fact I think it hurts them more as some don't update
as fast as the release managers think they do. I still support a 4.3
based GCC and only start
25 matches
Mail list logo
