Hi,
I have committed this patch on trunk for PR target/49862.
Regards,
Jie
PR target/49862
* config/bfin/bfin.c (hwloop_optimize): Fix unused variable
warnings.
(hwloop_pattern_reg): Fix set but not used warning.
(bfin_reorg_loops): Remove unused parameter.
(bfin_reorg): Update use of
On 01/06/2012 12:07 PM, Anatoly Sokolov wrote:
Hi, Jie.
On Jan 6, 2012, Jie Zhangjzhang...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anatoly,
The patch looks OK.
But I cannot apply your patch by saving your email as a patch file. If
you take a look at this:
I attach the patch.
I can apply the attached
Hi Anatoly,
The patch looks OK.
But I cannot apply your patch by saving your email as a patch file. If
you take a look at this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/get-raw-msg?listname=gcc-patchesdate=2012-01msgid=4F05F12F.607%40post.ru
you will find that there is a extra white space before each
Hi Anatoly,
I cannot apply your patch to a lean tree. I tried to save your email
as a text file, copy from thunderbird, copy from gmail, copy from the
mailing list archive. But neither works.
Regards,
Jie
2011/12/23 Anatoly Sokolov ae...@post.ru:
Hi.
This patch removes obsolete
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
I got Jeff Law to review the reload change on IRC
and committed the composite patch.
Tested on x86_64, i586, avr, and h8300. Most other
tier1 targets ought not be affected, as this patch
only applies to
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Georg-Johann Lay a...@gjlay.de wrote:
Hi, I'm getting the following error in viewvc for several days now:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/dse.c?view=markup
An Exception Has Occurred
Python Traceback
RuntimeError: maximum recursion limit exceeded
I
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Christopher Huang-Leaver
zeong...@googlemail.com wrote:
Output:
small end first
big end first
gcc -v
gcc version 4.4.5 (Gentoo 4.4.5 p1.2, pie-0.4.5)
I got the same result with g++-4.4 (4.4.6), g++-4.5 (4.5.3) on Debian
testing. But with g++-4.6, I got
On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2011 22:40, Christopher Huang-Leaver wrote:
Hello,
This isn't really a compiler bug, but it's something which the manual
doesn't describe too well so I thought I would point this out.
This page of the
Hi,
I have committed this patch to update my email address.
Jie
2011-04-21 Jie Zhang jzhang...@gmail.com
* MAINTAINERS: Update my email address.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 172853)
+++ MAINTAINERS (working
On 04/20/2011 03:24 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
As $SUBJECT suggests. Tested with cross to bfin-elf. OK to commit?
OK. Thanks!
Jie
-Nathan
* config/bfin/bfin.c (bfin_init_builtins): Call
build_function_type_list instead of build_function_type.
diff --git
Thank you for review, update and commit this patch set!
Jie
On 04/18/2011 10:04 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 15:44 +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
This patch implements TARGET_BUILTIN_DECL for ARM. With the changes of
the previous two patches, this one is straightforward
Hi,
Any news about this?
Regards,
Jie
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jie Zhang wrote:
I agree. I think Joseph is the best candidate for the maintainer of the
option handling
Sorry, I just noticed that Joseph has been listed as the maintainer of
option handling.
Jie
On 02/21/2011 11:56 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi,
Any news about this?
Regards,
Jie
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:34 AM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Gerald Pfeifer
Dear Steering Committee:
Is unifying driver and option handling maintainership a good idea?
On 01/12/2011 06:14 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
On 01/12/2011 06:07 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:10 AM, Jie Zhangj...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Dear Steering Committee:
The current
On 01/17/2011 10:35 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jie Zhang wrote:
I agree. I think Joseph is the best candidate for the maintainer of the
option handling since he made the most changes of gcc/opts-common.c. He
is already the maintainer of the driver. If we unify these two
. If we unify these two
maintainerships, we save one line of MAINTAINERS. :-)
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
in GCC was on 2005-01-19, which was nearly 6 years ago. So I guess he
might have not worked on GCC. If this is true, how about assigning a new
maintainer for option handling?
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
also posted it to gcc-patches mailing
list with an updated ChangeLog entry:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-01/msg00122.html
--
Jie Zhang
On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
, the driver will call assembler twice, once for t1.s and once for t2.s.
After r164357, the driver will only
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
* gcc.c (default_compilers[]): Set combinable field to 0
for all assembly languages.
Index: gcc.c
===
--- gcc.c (revision 168362)
+++ gcc.c (working copy)
@@ -935,11 +935,11 @@ static const struct compiler
On 12/21/2010 06:12 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-21 at 12:12 +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi,
While working on a bug, I found some code in ARM port that I don't
understand.
In ARM_LEGITIMIZE_RELOAD_ADDRESS and arm_legitimize_address, we allow a
very small offset for DImode
and labels -- into registers. Handle DImode better.
I checked out that revision to take a look but didn't find an obvious
reason for such small index range. Did I miss something tricky?
If there is nothing I missed, I'd like to propose the attached patch.
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
Index
On 10/23/2010 01:50 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
On 10/20/2010 7:48 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
Running CPU2006, with the hack removed I see about a 1% improvement in
specint (10% in 456.hmmer, a couple others in the 3% range, -3%
401.bzip2) and a 1% degradation in specfp (mainly due to a 13%
degradation
On 10/21/2010 04:08 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
On 10/18/2010 10:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/18/10 09:22, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Nathan
Froydfroy...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
3. The aforementioned rs6000 hack
On 10/18/2010 03:41 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 18.10.2010 11:31, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540
On 10/19/2010 10:16 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
On 19.10.2010 17:57, Jie Zhang wrote:
Removing the failing assert fixes the test case. But I wonder why not
just
get max_issue correct. I'm testing the attached patch. IMHO, max_issue
looks confusing.
* The concept of ISSUE POINT has never been
?
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
Hi Andrey,
On 10/18/2010 03:13 PM, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
Hi Jie,
On 18.10.2010 10:49, Jie Zhang wrote:
When this error happens, FENCE_ISSUED_INSNS (fence) is 2 and
issue_rate is
1. PowerPC 8540 is capable to issue 2 instructions in one cycle, but
rs6000_issue_rate lies to scheduler
will be
still valid.
Which way do you like most?
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
. As for solution 3, I do not know
either how to do that.
I will keep in mind these limitations for the future testcases.
Thanks. I will submit a patch for solution 2.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
On 07/13/2010 11:13 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I got this when trying to access
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44921
Software error:
Can't rename data/versioncache.Xg5KN to versioncache at globals.pl
line 306.
For help, please send mail to the webmaster
(sourcemas...@sourceware.org
and date of the error.
It was OK just two or three hours ago.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
with the main branch.
Yes. You need port your patch to SVN trunk before submit it.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
this, you need to create your patch against SVN trunk instead of
any branch or tag or release tarball.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 07/06/2010 10:39 PM, IainS wrote:
I'd like to compile a complete list of targets affected by changes in
emulated TLS.
*-*-darwin*
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
cris-*-elf
I think also;
*-*-mingw
*-*-cygwin
could
REG_EQUAL notes are still
kept around. So the compiler passes after register allocation need check
for both REG_EQUIV notes and REG_EQUAL notes. Is my understanding correct?
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Insns.html#index-REG_005fEQUIV-2258
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385
, value in \
File /usr/lib/python2.3/site-packages/pygments/lexer.py, line 479,
in get_tokens_unprocessed
m = rexmatch(text, pos)
RuntimeError: maximum recursion limit exceeded
Similar issue for 4.3 branch. trunk, 4.2 and 4.1 are OK.
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
people can reproduce
your issue.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
file in GCC's bugzilla.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
On 03/30/2010 12:11 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/23/10 21:30, Jie Zhang wrote:
I'm fixing a bug. It's caused by uninitialized caller save pass data.
One function in the test case uses the optimize attribute with O2
option. So even with -O0 in command line, GCC calls caller save pass
There are two calls of gen_rtx_VAR_LOCATION in cfgexpand.c. Both calls
cast a tree to rtx as the third argument. Why a tree is used in RTL
expression? Will it be transformed into RTL later or all RTL passes
should recognize it's a tree and just ignore it? Thanks.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
On 03/26/2010 11:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:27:24PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
There are two calls of gen_rtx_VAR_LOCATION in cfgexpand.c. Both calls
cast a tree to rtx as the third argument. Why a tree is used in RTL
expression? Will it be transformed into RTL later
which should have handled or be able to be easily adapted
to handle this case? Thanks!
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
On 03/25/2010 11:22 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 03/25/10 09:14, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 03/25/2010 04:03 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I just found that the current RTL code hoisting cannot optimize
REG = ...
if (cond)
{
r0 = REG;
}
else
{
r0 = REG;
...
}
to
REG = ...
r0 = REG;
if (cond
handled or be able to be easily adapted to handle this case?
Hoisting should handle it, bui
Can you open a new PR and make it block PR33828, please?
If I can publish the test case, yes. Or I have to rewrite a test case.
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
three global function in caller-save.c:
init_save_areas, setup_save_areas, and save_call_clobbered_regs. We can
just add a check in the beginning of those functions. If the data has
not been initialized, just init_caller_save first.
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance.
--
Jie Zhang
function which can use a bitmap to do a ordered
multiple remove. Did I miss something or I have to write one?
Regards,
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331-3385 x735
. */
VEC_ordered_remove (constructor_elt, CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS (init),
idx);
It seems there is no VEC function which can use a bitmap to do a ordered
multiple remove. Did I miss something or I have to write one?
You have to write one.
Thanks!
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331
, I have read the thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-02/msg00215.html
This question seems not easy. So is there any practical method to make
register allocator pick up the third alternative and do commutation
before or during register allocation?
Thanks,
--
Jie Zhang
CodeSourcery
(650) 331
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Dave Korn
dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18/02/2010 07:17, Jie Zhang wrote:
We are trying to add a 16bit integer division library function for
bfin port. I just found GCC didn't do integral promotions when calling
library function
We are trying to add a 16bit integer division library function for
bfin port. I just found GCC didn't do integral promotions when calling
library function.
For example, in function foo, I can assume both arguments are zero
extended from unsigned short to unsigned int.
extern unsigned short foo
On 02/08/2010 08:53 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
It is my pleasure to announce that, also based on the recommendation of
Bernd as an existing maintainer, the steering committee has appointed
Jie Zhang maintainer of the bfin port.
Thanks for your contributions over the last five(?) years, Jie
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Bernd Roesch nospamn...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
Because of this regression,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41311
Problem is in m68k-elf too, but happen not with any older GCC as 4.5.0
i want try out if the first GCC 4.5.0 snapshot
have this Problem
On 01/05/2010 07:12 AM, Matt wrote:
Hi,
I'm fixing some compiler errors when configuring with
--enable-build-with-cxx, and ran into a curious line of code that may
indicate a bug:
static unsigned int
rest_of_handle_combine (void)
{
int rebuild_jump_labels_after_combine;
df_set_flags
On 12/27/2009 03:05 PM, Silvius Rus wrote:
On the flip side, it's not necessarily easy to get it to work. On my
build system, apt-get doesn't find it. Downloading and installing the
.deb manually triggers 3 missing deps.
apt-get install libmpc-dev
libmpc-dev is already in squeeze and sid if
On 12/01/2009 06:25 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/30/2009 09:47 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Kaveh R.
GHAZIgh...@caip.rutgers.edu wrote:
The patch which makes the MPC library a hard requirement for GCC
bootstrapping has been approved today.
Out of curiosity
Hi,
Please don't top reply.
On 12/28/2009 12:59 PM, Pardis Beikzadeh wrote:
Hi,
Also 'make bootstrap' doesn't work without running configure, so I'm
not sure what the recommended way mentioned in the email below
means.
The bootstrap in Jim's reply means, I think, building a minimal (only C
On 12/23/2009 02:43 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi,
We just got a similar problem on Blackfin GCC recently. Let me take the
test code from the bug as an example:
I reduce the test case to a simpler one:
$ cat foo.c
unsigned int
foo (volatile unsigned short *p)
{
return *p;
}
I the tree dump
On 12/23/2009 06:12 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
typedef unsigned short u16;
typedef unsigned int u32;
u32 a(volatile u16* off) {
return *off;
}
mingw32-gcc-4.3.0.exe -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -mtune=core2 test.c
it produces:
_a:
0: 8b 44 24 04
Hi,
We just got a similar problem on Blackfin GCC recently. Let me take the
test code from the bug as an example:
typedef unsigned short u16;
typedef unsigned int u32;
u32 a(volatile u16* off) {
return *off;
}
u32 b(u16* off) {
return *off;
}
compiled with
On 12/18/2009 06:27 AM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Actually, I just finished updating my 4.3.2 to 4.3.3 and tested it and
I still have the same issue.
This seems to be a problem more than just 4.3.2.
Here is the test program:
#includestdio.h
#includegmp.h
int main() {
mpz_t a,b;
On 11/26/2009 02:04 PM, yunfeng zhang wrote:
The result is the same
#includestdio.h
extern int g __attribute__((visibility(hidden)));
int g;
int foo(int a, int b)
{
g = a + b;
printf(%x, %x,g, foo);
return g;
}
load and call `foo' in the library, an outputting
Dave Korn wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Dave Korn
dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Good morning all!
Is there some reason that I don't know about (e.g. limiting the load on the
server) why the revision log views of files in our viewvc setup would be
Andreas Schwab wrote:
It looks like the master branch of git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc hasn't been
updated since 3 weeks (trunk is still ok).
Same here. I now use trunk instead.
Jie
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 11:38:55AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Which version of gcc did you use? gcc 4.1 (maybe and 4.2) will report
error. But gcc 4.3 compiles OK. I tested using x86_64 native gcc from
Debian unstable. __emutls_get_address is defined in libgcc even the
Hi Paolo,
Thanks for your review!
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
+AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([__thread int a; int b; int main() { return a = b; }],
+ [if grep __emutls_get_address conftest.$ac_objext
/dev/null ; then
grepping in a binary file is not portable. If this works it would be
Hi Frank,
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Jie Zhang jie.zh...@analog.com writes:
To break the recursive loop, one solution is to force emutls to call
the real calloc. [...]
If it were acceptable to change emutls on account of mudflap, this
sort of thing could work. Other alternatives would include
Hi,
I encountered a recursive call problem between libmudflap and emutls
when testing libmudflap for Blackfin. But I think this issue affects all
targets without TLS.
One libmudflap test case in the testsuite calls __wrap_calloc. In
__wrap_calloc, __mf_state_1 is looked by __mf_get_state to
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So we have to use single quotes. The updated patch is attached.
This will break if the value can contain single quotes.
How about using double quotes but escaping , \, $, and ` using
backslash? The patch is attached.
Jie
diff
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -261,7 +262,11 @@ proc rsh_exec { boardname program pargs inp outp } {
set inp /dev/null
}
-set ret [local_exec $RSH $rsh_useropts $hostname sh -c
libmudflap tests set a environment MUDFLAP_OPTIONS=-viol-segv before
testing such that violations are promoted to SIGSEGV signals in testing.
Otherwise, the exit value would be 0 even the test has violations.
libmudflap testsuite depends on the exit value of tests to decide if the
test PASS or
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
@@ -261,7 +262,11 @@ proc rsh_exec { boardname program pargs inp outp } {
set inp /dev/null
}
-set ret [local_exec $RSH $rsh_useropts $hostname sh -c '$program $pargs \\; echo XYZ\\\${?}ZYX' $inp $outp $timeout
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to hardcode library paths into programs... immediate
checking for
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
checking whether -lc should be explicitly linked in... no
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to hardcode library paths
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Jie
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 07:55:45PM +0800, Jie Zhang wrote:
libstdc++ tries to avoid link tests when configured with newlib. But I
saw this when working on bfin port gcc:
From config.log:
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/gcc/../ld/ld-new:
cannot open
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:27:18PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.
Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Stupid double negatives. Okay, so
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
bfin-elf-gcc -mfdpic failed to link a simple test case because code is
put into L1 instruction sram and data is put into L1 data sram, but
Blackfin immediate offset load instruction cannot access GOT since the
gap between instruction sram and data sram
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
/home/rask/build/gcc-bfin-unknown-elf/gcc/../ld/ld-new:
crt532.o: No such file: No such file or directory
I sorted that out by using your config/bfin/elf.h, but there's something
weird. The first time configure runs, it will complain about
GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
Jie Zhang wrote:
On 8/10/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
re. timing for Stage 3?
I have many bfin port patches which have not been merged
On 2/10/07, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But now gcc seems to optimize it away. For the following function:
$ cat t.c
#include limits.h
void foo (int rc)
{
int x = rc / INT_MAX;
x = 4 / x;
}
I believe we still
On 2/10/07, Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c.
It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it
seems it should find another way to do that.
Any code that tries to raise
On 2/10/07, Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/10/07, Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The code I posted in my first email is from libgloss/libnosys/_exit.c.
It's used to cause an exception deliberately. From your replies, it
seems it should find another way to do that.
Maybe
On 2/11/07, Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going to use an asm ().
Yeah, an asm volatile ( : : r (x) : ) should please GCC and still be
portable to different platforms.
I thought using an asm () for each port to cause an exception specific
for that port. Such that divide-by-zero
Hi,
Division by zero is undefined. We chose to keep it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-06/msg01068.html
But now gcc seems to optimize it away. For the following function:
$ cat t.c
#include limits.h
void foo (int rc)
{
int x = rc / INT_MAX;
x = 4 / x;
}
$ gcc -O2 -S t.c
$ cat t.s
It should has been removed from c.opt in the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-07/msg02660.html.
But it's still in trunk and branches 3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2.
Jie
On 6/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Co. have a new 32b embedded processor, and we have ported the gcc
backend for it(support c/c++), now we want add its backend code into gcc
packages. i read the Contributing to GCC pages that we must sign some
forms, can you kindly send
Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi,
In gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/lib/chk.c, vsnprintf () is defined
using vsprintf (). While vsnprintf () in uClibc is defined using
^ Sorry, should be vsprintf
vsnprintf (). When testing on uClinux with uClibc, pr23484-chk.c
failed
On 3/18/06, Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Hi,
In gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/lib/chk.c, vsnprintf () is defined
using vsprintf (). While vsnprintf () in uClibc is defined using
^ Sorry, should be vsprintf
vsnprintf (). When
Hi,
I'm adding some assembly floating point functions to bfin port. These
functions are much faster than those in fp-bit.c. However, they relax
some IEEE floating point standard rules for checking inputs against
NaN. So I think we'd better to call them only when -ffast-math or
-ffinite-math-only
Hi,
In this page http://gcc.gnu.org/news/egcs-vcg.html, it's said that
If you view these files using a suitable program, you'll get output
similar to the following. However, when I use xvcg to view
test.c.01.sibling.vcg, xvcg errors:
Wait.aLine 5: attribute T_Co_hidden currently not implemented
On 1/26/06, Jie Zhang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
In this page http://gcc.gnu.org/news/egcs-vcg.html, it's said that
If you view these files using a suitable program, you'll get output
similar to the following. However, when I use xvcg to view
test.c.01.sibling.vcg, xvcg errors
93 matches
Mail list logo
