by the GCC compiler proper,
not CPP.
And do what with the preprocessor symbol? If the symbol is defined by
the compiler *after* preprocessing occurs(as in the compiler and not
the preprocessor) , then it can't be used to selectively preprocess code...
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a
year ago and at least three people worked on fixing. So once your patches
are ready, go ahead and submit them.
28181 has been popping up over the last several years in various forms
(5373, 13803, 18421, 23695, etc).
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
of the
issue is enough for some energetic intern to come along and create a
testcase, who knows?
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
their
valuable time to fix it. But if you don't report it, tough, don't
complain about it...
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
options to select ColdFire specific behavior.
Thanks in advance!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
like yours are worse than meaningless.
I wouldn't call it meaningless. I don't have other benchmark numbers
for the chip, and it was menat to show that it isn't a blazingly fast
processor (as compared to desktop machines).
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, but Ralf was complaining about embedded cross-compiling development
for RTEMS. I have not tried to reply to Peter Barada who complains about
GCC inablity to be run on embedded targets directly.
Logically Peter's situation is the same as the NetBSD issue with
building and testing
. I do have some experimental kernel hacks in to allow swapping
via NFS, so you can understand why it can take *days* to build stuff.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
., while away from the notebook at home :-)
Try it ... it works,
Huh? I can cross-compile GCC, its all the packages that require
native configuration/building
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
main memory and
don't have a disk in the hardware design to swap to.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
to execution speed problems, but in my case, there is no
other hardware I can use.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in memory consumption.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. AFAIK,
configuring with --disable-nls should be enough to skip libiconv,
libintl, etc. and cross-build.
I don't think sed has a problem cross-building, its just all the junk
that each package uses in its configure that if it *has* to be
natively built that compounds the problem.
--
Peter Barada
for a
workstation or an embedeed Linux device, and as such *should* consider
the problems that both encounter and not just favor the workstation end.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
an obsolete machine and it took
90 minutes for make -- not a full bootstrap.
Even on a 3.0Ghz P4 with HT, 1Gb DDR and a hardware RAID with SATA
drives it takes about 30 minutes so there's a *lot* of work going on,
and I'd call that near cutting-edge.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
/compile (openssh, perl as examples off the top of my
head) without a *lot* of work.
Its just that it takes a lot of time and work to cross-build a non-x86
linux environment to verify any changes in the toolchain.
And comments like get a faster machine are a non-starter.
/minor-rant
--
Peter Barada
passing some regression test suite,
e.g. gcc's, glibc's, and/or ltp's?
Any one of them would provide a nice reality check.
I'm open to running them if there's a *really* clear how-to to do it
that takes into account remote hardware.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
crossbuild will suffice.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
machines(2.4Ghz P4) take an hour to do a cross-build
from scratch.
This could be made substantially easier if libgcc moved to the top
level. You wanna help out with that?
Uh, ok. What do you mean by move to the top level?
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a printed and bound book published by somebody else, I
don't think there is a newer one available.
I like the printed book since I can dog-ear pages and scribble notes
in it. As it is, my 2.95 version's binding is nearly fallying apart :)
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
manual is available(and if so, where I
can find it)?
Eventually I'll have to try my changes on gcc-4.0 to see what that does.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
)
(((GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (mode) = 12) TARGET_68881)
|| ((GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (mode) = 8) TARGET_CFV4E)))
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
Any further insight or suggestions are *really* appreciated!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) \
: (TARGET_PCREL \
(GET_CODE (X) == SYMBOL_REF || GET_CODE (X) == CONST \
|| GET_CODE (X) == LABEL_REF))\
? ADDR_REGS \
: (CLASS))
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the information as I did in the 2nd email to you.
Thanks!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
for that will tellm where regclass things that the
register should go? Is it:
;; Register 1421 in 0.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
than the 5200 has.
Can anyone take a stab at describing *how* to debug this? Is this
just a case where there are so many live registers that reload has
just backed itself into a corner?
Any suggestions are appreciated!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) == MODE_COMPLEX_FLOAT)
(((GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (mode) = 12) TARGET_68881)
|| ((GET_MODE_UNIT_SIZE (mode) = 8) TARGET_CFV4E)))
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
Any further insight or suggestions are *really* appreciated!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
instead.
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Barada wrote:
I'd like to make the reload look like:
(set (reg:SI y) (plus:SI (reg_SI 16) (const_int 32832)))
(set (reg:DF x) (mem:DF (reg:SI y)))
Reload already knows how to make this transformation, so it should not
be necessary to resort to LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS. This is only
find use XEXP
(x, 0) as the first operand which to me looks like its rewriting the
first half of the address instead of the whole address.
Any ideas how to do this?
Thanks!
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
constraint does not allow a register
So is the warning wrong?
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the documentation wrong?
--
Peter Barada
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
32 matches
Mail list logo
