On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Saswat Padhi wrote:
>
> I am Saswat Padhi, a final year undergraduate at IIT Bombay, India.
> With help from the GCC Resource Center here, I am currently investing
> possible improvements to GCC Machine Descriptions, with a goal of
> making them concise and composa
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Since we are nearing release, I thought I'd mention I see:
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi:1114: warning: node next `Overall Options' in
> menu `C Dialect Options' and in sectioning `Invoking G++' differ
> ../../gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi:1114:
Since we are nearing release, I thought I’d mention I see:
../../gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi:1114: warning: node next `Overall Options' in
menu `C Dialect Options' and in sectioning `Invoking G++' differ
../../gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi:1114: warning: node up `Overall Options' in menu
`Option Summary'
On 03/28/2014 02:48 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:15:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/28/2014 10:46 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/28/2014 09:30 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:15:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 10:46 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2014 09:30 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:11AM +, Andrew Haley
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 03:03:11PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 02:48 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 01:15:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2014 10:46 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley
Hello everyone,
I am Saswat Padhi, a final year undergraduate at IIT Bombay, India.
With help from the GCC Resource Center here, I am currently investing
possible improvements to GCC Machine Descriptions, with a goal of
making them concise and composable.
One of the improvements we were looking a
Hi all,
Some of the tests added in gcc.dg/graphite are failing for AVR target, Because
size of the arrays defined are 'too' large for AVR. I'm wondering is it
possible to reduce the size of the array's in tests.
One example is gcc.dg/graphite/scop-0.c, which is failing with error
"size of array
Thanks for the info. I will try it out.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 07:51:06PM -0400, Niranjan Hasabnis wrote:
>> Hi DJ Delorie,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer. It is useful. One more question: so does the
>> main testsuite cover all
On 03/28/2014 10:46 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/28/2014 09:30 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:11AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/28/2014 06:20 AM, dw wrote:
> Using this clobbe
On 28-Mar-14 01:46 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ok, I see the problem. Maybe something like this by avoiding the term?
Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified)
registers being used to store values which gcc d
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:41:41AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 09:30 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:11AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 03/28/2014 06:20 AM, dw wrote:
> >>> Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified) registers
On 27 March 2014 23:37, Daniel Gutson
wrote:
>>
>> There are some known bugs in -Wconversion and nobody working on them,
>> so if you are still interested in helping, I can give you some hints
>> on where your help will be very welcome.
>
> Could you please go ahead and show me the failing cases?
On 03/28/2014 09:30 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:11AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/28/2014 06:20 AM, dw wrote:
>>> Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified) registers
>>> being used to store memory-based values to memory before executi
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 09:10:11AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 06:20 AM, dw wrote:
> > Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified) registers
> > being used to store memory-based values to memory before executing the
> > @code{asm} statement.
>
> I don't know wha
On 03/28/2014 06:20 AM, dw wrote:
> Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified) registers
> being used to store memory-based values to memory before executing the
> @code{asm} statement.
I don't know what a "memory-based" value is. This phrase doesn't help
at all. In additio
dw writes:
> Using this clobber causes the compiler to flush all (modified) registers
> being used to store memory-based values to memory before executing the
> @code{asm} statement. Further, the compiler will not assume that any
> memory-based values read before the @code{asm} will remain unc
17 matches
Mail list logo
