On 3/3/2014 3:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw writes:
On 2/27/2014 11:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw writes:
On 2/27/2014 4:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by misunderstandings of GCC'
For the 4.7 branch I only saw one architecture using exposed pipeline.
Is there any documentation on the quality of exposed pipeline support?
Does the back-end need to do anything special to deal with jumps and
returns from calls?
Thanks
Shmeel
Matthew Fortune writes:
>> I think instead we should have a configuration switch that allows a
>> particular -mfp option to be inserted alongside -mabi=32 if no explicit
>> -mfp is given. This is how most --with options work. Maybe --with-fp-
>> 32={32|64|xx}? Specific triples could set a defau
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Matthew Fortune writes:
> > Richard Sandiford writes:
> >> Matthew Fortune writes:
> >> > Are you're OK with automatically selecting fpxx if no -mfp option,
> >> > no .module and no .gnu_attribute exists? Such code would currently
> >> > end up as FP ABI Any even if
Matthew Fortune writes:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>> Matthew Fortune writes:
>> > Are you're OK with automatically selecting fpxx if no -mfp option, no
>> > .module and no .gnu_attribute exists? Such code would currently end up
>> > as FP ABI Any even if FP code was present, I don't suppose an
Richard Sandiford writes:
> Matthew Fortune writes:
> > Are you're OK with automatically selecting fpxx if no -mfp option, no
> > .module and no .gnu_attribute exists? Such code would currently end up
> > as FP ABI Any even if FP code was present, I don't suppose anything
> > would get worse if t
On 5 March 2014 17:15, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
>> >> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Mar 01, 20
Matthew Fortune writes:
> Are you're OK with automatically selecting fpxx if no -mfp option, no
> .module and no .gnu_attribute exists? Such code would currently end up
> as FP ABI Any even if FP code was present, I don't suppose anything
> would get worse if this existing behaviour simply continu
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:54:59PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2014, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > Some libgcc functions on ARM have ABIs that depend on which AAPCS
> > variant is in use - that is, libcalls, not just explicitly defined or
> > called functions, can affect the ABI compatibility. But the RTABI
> > functions don't - if you allow
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:26:36PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp3.20140305162928.8...@uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: uk1vsc.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP3 at UK1VSC)
>
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riege
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 22:11 +, Peter Sewell wrote:
> On 3 March 2014 20:44, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 04:05 -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> On 1 March 2014 08:03, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Mar 01, 2014 at 04:06:34AM -0600, Peter Sewell wrote:
> >> >> Hi Paul
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 13:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:00:32AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> > > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XA
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 21:58 +0530, Mohsin Khan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am developing plugins for the GCC-4.8.2. I am a newbie in plugins.
> I wrote a plugin and tried to count and see the Goto Statements using
> the gimple_stmt_iterator. I get gimple statements printed on my
> stdout, but I am not abl
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 11:00 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 09:46:19PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > xagsmtp2.20140303204700.3...@vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com
> > X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvma.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP2 at VMSDVMA)
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:20 -0800, Paul E. McK
Hi,
I am developing plugins for the GCC-4.8.2. I am a newbie in plugins.
I wrote a plugin and tried to count and see the Goto Statements using
the gimple_stmt_iterator. I get gimple statements printed on my
stdout, but I am not able to find the line which has goto statements.
I only get other lin
Hi,
I am extremely sorry as I couldn't reply from many days. Actually I
was busy with some personal work so I didn't work for many days.
I didn't use MELT because, I didn't want learn a new language and
also my professor wanted me to code the plugin in C/C++ .
On 2/18/14, Basile Starynkevitch w
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Yeah, that'd be great. The checking that MIPS's -mno-float should do
> (but doesn't do) would be a superset of what you need, since the MIPS
> case would include internal uses of floats. But it would definitely
> make sense to share
[Since I can now send emails without disclaimers, I registered to the mailing
list with my work email. Thus no need to CC me anymore.]
My apologize for the line length, the MUA says it all I think. It seems to
ignore my word wrap setting
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> S
> From: Thomas Preud'homme
> [Since I can now send emails without disclaimers, I registered to the mailing
> list with my work email. Thus no need to CC me anymore.]
Failed in the previous 2 emails. Sorry about that.
On Mar 5, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 03/04/2014 10:12 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
Asms without outputs are automatically volatile. So there ought be zero
change
with and without the explicit use of the __volatile__ keyword.
>>>
>>> That’s what the documentation
On 03/04/2014 10:12 PM, Yury Gribov wrote:
>>> Asms without outputs are automatically volatile. So there ought be zero
>>> change
>>> with and without the explicit use of the __volatile__ keyword.
>>
>> That’s what the documentation says but it wasn’t actually true
>> as of a couple of releases a
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > How do I restrict some subexpression to have
> > > a single use?
> >
> > This kind of restrictions come via the valueize() hook - simply
> > valueize to NULL_TREE to make the match fail (for example
> > SS
23 matches
Mail list logo
