> Well, what about adding a new backend phase to gcc generating what we
> expect for our purpose? Ok, it is rather easy to have a branch in gcc,
> harder to have it accepted in the main-stream gcc... :-) With a good
> argumentation...
IMHO (as a full time gcc developer) it's easier to just impleme
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:18:53 + (GMT), Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Johannes> The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands.
Johannes> If the "good" gcc guys would not have insisted on not having
Johannes> an option to force the "ret" or "jm
> > > As it is, Fabrice's code generator will most likely be something
> > > similar to Paul's qops, which means that you have to invent a
> > > "primitive C" in which to write the miniops, and you will have to
> > > write a backend for _each_ and _every_ host CPU you support.
It's not a terribly
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 21.01.2008 um 12:18 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
>
> > The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands. If the
> > "good" gcc guys would not have insisted on not having an option to
> > force the "ret" or "jmp" statement at the end
Am 21.01.2008 um 12:18 schrieb Johannes Schindelin:
The miniops right now are implemented as plain C commands. If the
"good"
gcc guys would not have insisted on not having an option to force the
"ret" or "jmp" statement at the end of the function, we could use
them for
_all_ processors.
Hi...
On Jan 21, 2008 6:18 PM, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As it is, Fabrice's code generator will most likely be something similar
> to Paul's qops, which means that you have to invent a "primitive C" in
> which to write the miniops, and you will have to write a backend for
>
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
> If I may jump into the pool...
>
> > I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part
> > by "#ifdef GCC...", even if I have been told that it works only by
> > chance (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not
On Jan 21, 2008, at 4:39 AM, Mulyadi Santosa wrote:
Hi...
If I may jump into the pool...
I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending
part by
"#ifdef GCC...", even if I have been told that it works only by
chance
(but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not
Hi...
If I may jump into the pool...
> I plan to work around the MinGW issue by guarding the offending part by
> "#ifdef GCC...", even if I have been told that it works only by chance
> (but it works, whereas any other option I tried does not).
Ehm, should we better wait a bit for fabrice to com
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki:
>
> > Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
> > contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
> > give directions on what would have to b
On 20 Jan 2008, at 22:56, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote:
...what is being done or who can
give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build
using
gcc4.
as i said, review the archives and you'll find many discussions
with real
in
Am 20.01.2008 um 23:38 schrieb Sunil Amitkumar Janki:
Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using
gcc4. I'd prefer it too that I w
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sunil Amitkumar Janki wrote:
> Ignoring the fact that the original poster wrote in all caps and can't
> contribute much to qemu development, what is being done or who can
> give directions on what would have to be done to make qemu build using
> gcc4. I'd prefer it too th
On Jan 20, 2008 11:26 PM, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
> >
> > I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore.
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
>
> I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know
> that person, of course, and respect her, too.
yes, the caps
Hi,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> having people type all caps e-mails contributes nothing.
I disagree: it makes it easier to spot whom to ignore. Unless you know
that person, of course, and respect her, too.
Ciao,
Dscho
On Sunday 20 January 2008, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
> I think you dont answer his question. ;)
his question is bogus. if he spent 5 seconds reading the archives, it isnt
like people arent "considering supporting gcc 4". having people type all
caps e-mails contributes nothing. either put up a
I think you dont answer his question. ;)
Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle (aka Usurp)
- Message d'origine
De : Jérôme PRIOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 20 Janvier 2008, 19h40mn 29s
Objet : Re: [Qemu-devel] WE NEED GCC 4 please
> could you please consider supporting gcc 4 ?
you can install gcc-3 in other directory and use the --cc= option.
On Slackware I just
installpkg -root /tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu gcc-3*tgz
./configure --cc=/tmp/gcc3-just-for-qemu/usr/bin/gcc
make
...
works fine.
19 matches
Mail list logo
