http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #24 from Joseph S. Myers jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-05
15:13:38 UTC ---
The sort of patches here should be updated for trunk and resubmitted now we are
in stage 1 for 4.7 and such patches are appropriate.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #18 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 08:55:43 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 08:55:37 2010
New Revision: 168262
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168262
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #19 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 09:45:50 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 09:45:46 2010
New Revision: 168264
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168264
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #20 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 13:08:49 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 13:08:44 2010
New Revision: 168273
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168273
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #21 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 13:24:54 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 13:24:48 2010
New Revision: 168274
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168274
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #22 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 13:40:18 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 13:40:14 2010
New Revision: 168275
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168275
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #23 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-27 23:00:31 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 27 23:00:27 2010
New Revision: 168279
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168279
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #17 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-21 10:20:23 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Tue Dec 21 10:20:19 2010
New Revision: 168107
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168107
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #16 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-20 16:47:50 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Mon Dec 20 16:47:45 2010
New Revision: 168086
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168086
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #15 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-19 21:21:30 UTC ---
Author: amylaar
Date: Sun Dec 19 21:21:26 2010
New Revision: 168075
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=168075
Log:
PR
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #12 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-12-13 17:58:13 UTC ---
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We don't have any current decimal floating or fixed-point type size macros
to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #13 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-13 19:16:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
On Sat, 11 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
We don't have any current decimal floating or fixed-point
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #14 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-12-13 21:31:11 UTC ---
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #13 from Jorn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #11 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-12-11 07:27:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
What about the floating-point types? Or would we rather have
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #10 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-29 02:53:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
* POINTER_SIZE and ADA_LONG_TYPE_SIZE I haven't looked at in detail -
We have several possible substitutes for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-26
19:49:58 UTC ---
Frontends and tree optimizers also use TYPE_SIZE_UNIT and DECL_SIZE_UNIT which
is calculated by layout_type using target dependent BITS_PER_UNIT.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #2 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-26 21:01:09 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Frontends and tree optimizers also use TYPE_SIZE_UNIT and DECL_SIZE_UNIT which
is calculated by layout_type using target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-11-26 21:24:05 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
The frontends and tree optimizers use the *_TYPE_SIZE and POINTER_SIZE
target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #4 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-26 21:53:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 22543
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22543
patch using DEFHOOKPOD
For the record, this is the patch using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #5 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-26 22:08:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
* Modifiable members of targetm are a bad idea and make LTO-based
devirtualization harder (I'd rather targetm was const
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-26
22:18:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #3)
* Modifiable members of targetm are a bad idea and make LTO-based
devirtualization harder (I'd
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #7 from Jorn Wolfgang Rennecke amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-11-26 22:34:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
No. The optimization passes that are remotely related do not work
flow or context sensitive, so we don't know whether
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-26
23:08:50 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
No. The optimization passes that are remotely related do not work
flow or context sensitive, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46677
--- Comment #9 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com 2010-11-26 23:45:16 UTC ---
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
* All the macros relating to the sizes of various C types in bits should
be
24 matches
Mail list logo