is by doing nothing (current behaviour) or if
convert_memory_address should be changed so that it does the same
conversion on const_int values when POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is
undefined as it does when POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED is defined.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
address ought to have a
> gcc_assert (GET_MODE (x) == to_mode);
> in the #ifndef case.
OK, I'll toss that in too. It won't be seen on the HP-UX side but I'll
do a Linux build as well.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsigned extensions and I am not sure if that would be set
correctly for pointer types based on a platforms setting of
POINTERS_EXTEND_UNSIGNED.
Anyone have any insights?
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
look at this test case and help
me understand what is going on and if this change from 3.4 to 4.0 is
intentional or not?
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Test Case ---
#define L_CONST 500
void *malloc(long size);
struct plan7_s {
when I try to use the __restrict__
attribute on the array arguments. Without the __restrict__ attribute I
am sure we would not do any vectorization and then what is the point of
the test?
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
is aligned.
It seems like we are lying about the alignment of the pa, pb, pc
arguments but I don't see a way around this. If we changed GCC to pad
the array elements (in order to obey the alignment request) wouldn't we
actually break our ability to vectorize things?
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL
n
and I don't know if I can determine that while running
struct-layout-1_generate.
The simplest solution would probably be to ignore __aligned__ attributes
completely when we have an array. Or to do the change you suggested for
the vector tests and have the attribute attached to the array and not
the element type.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
s than or
equal to the size of the base type in those instances where we are
creating an array.
I would be interested in any advice on the best way to fix these tests
so that I can add my patch without causing regressions.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here is the patch that checks for the alig
d operand 3 have in this situation?
Or should it have been left out?
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
general coming up with a specific set of criteria where an
aggregate doesn't have to be treated as such is difficult on IA64. For
more details about the IA64 ABI see:
http://h21007.www2.hp.com/dspp/tech/tech_TechDocumentDetailPage_IDX/1,1701,3309,00.html
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
301 - 310 of 310 matches
Mail list logo
