My guess is that the ARM compiler does not like 64-bit values in
conditional expressions. The following C snippet:
typedef unsigned long long uvlong;
uvlong uvinf= ((uvlong)0x7FF032)|0x;
uvlong uvneginf = ((uvlong)0xFFF032)|0x;
; 9diff com64.c
/n/sources/plan9//sys/src/cmd/cc/com64.c:275,281 - com64.c:275,280
case OAS:
case OIND:
case OLIST:
- case OCOMMA:
return 1;
case OADD:
a = nodaddv;
- erik
i've got a 5[acl] tucked away that does 64-bit operations, although
i think that particular case can be fixed more simply.
On 29 October 2011 16:29, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
My guess is that the ARM compiler does not like 64-bit values in
conditional expressions. The following C
i've tried this example with a cc that has com64.c unchanged from sources
(ie, without the change erik suggested),
and a 5c that has no relevant changes at all, and it was fine.
On 29 October 2011 16:29, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
My guess is that the ARM compiler does not like
i've tried this example with a cc that has com64.c unchanged from sources
(ie, without the change erik suggested),
and a 5c that has no relevant changes at all, and it was fine.
I'm too stupid to reach the right conclusion from what you are saying:
does this mean that I have a dated 5c? I'm
i've got a 5[acl] tucked away that does 64-bit operations, although
i think that particular case can be fixed more simply.
Will you please upload what you can find somewhere public?
I don't know the ARM at all, but the convergence of Go, Android and
64-bit ARM chips in mobile phones can't be
sorry, i was misleading. i meant a 5c that does vlongs more directly,
not a 5c that does the new arm 64-bit operations. that compiler would
have a different name.
i've got a 5[acl] tucked away that does 64-bit operations
/sys/src/cmd/cc/com64.c:275,281
The context is:
int
com64(Node *n)
{
...
switch(n-op) {
default:
diag(n, unknown vlong %O, n-op);
case OFUNC:
n-complex = FNX;
case ORETURN:
i've just copied across and compiled cc and 5c from sources,and that
code you posted earlier compiled without fuss.
sorry, i was misleading. i meant a 5c that does vlongs more directly,
not a 5c that does the new arm 64-bit operations. that compiler would
have a different name.
I seem to recall that ARM 64-bit emulation is one of Go's open TODOs.
I think thie plethora of (sub-)architectures is terribly
i've just copied across and compiled cc and 5c from sources,and that
code you posted earlier compiled without fuss.
Hm, that needs investigating, I know I have messed around with 5[acl]
for the Sheeva, but I expected regular replicas to take care of that.
Mind you, that's bad thinking, as
Based on golang mailing list discussions, I do believe that the intent
is to have something like goinstall be the build tool for go, but I
could have misinterpreted what I read.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 07:32, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
just take unsuitable things out of the mkfiles,
12 matches
Mail list logo
