Hello,
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 08:42:28 -0600
Peter Bigot big...@acm.org wrote:
Unfortunately this list doesn't support attachments. Perhaps somebody
could put it on E2E and add a pointer.
Or maybe RedHat even has version control system, maybe even with web
interface?
Interesting that TI
Hello,
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:23:00 -0700
Thomas Taranowski t...@baringforge.com wrote:
Thanks for the comment Paul. What are you using for your compiler
flags? I'm having a couple issues with mine.
I'm currently using the following:
-ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -DGCC_MSP430 -Wall
Hello,
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 23:00:43 -0400
Peter Johansson rockets4k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com
wrote:
C++ as a language works really well with mspgcc.
C++ stdlib is different story.
The vast majority of MSP430s are rather
Hello,
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:45:00 -0500
Peter Bigot big...@acm.org wrote:
C++ is not supported by mspgcc. Some people are using it to some
degree with some success, and may be able to provide hints about
improved compatibility, but no effort has been made to ensure it
functions.
C++ as
Hello,
On Tue, 14 May 2013 23:31:03 +0530
kuldeep dhaka kuldeepdha...@gmail.com wrote:
hello guys,
while coding (embedded devices) i got an idea.
[]
in the above code, after sending uart_send(before) , before is no
more useful to me.
but for while loop i have to get a new variable i
Hello,
On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:35:14 +1200
Daniel Beer dlb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 09:26:46PM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
More interesting question is such support for static (if not global)
variables. When trying to do Elliptic Curve Cryptography on MSP430
value line
Hello,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 20:15:45 -0400
Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@gmail.com wrote:
As you say, the reason for the undefined behaviour in the standard is
because different ISA (instruction set architectures) behave
differently. The underlying assumption here is that C is a 'bare
to shift 60K times).
Please note that the new back end under development by Red Hat may
have different behavior.
Peter
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Paul Sokolovsky pmis...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:06:51 -0500
Peter Bigot big...@acm.org wrote
Hello,
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:39:27 +0200
David Brown da...@westcontrol.com wrote:
Hi,
When I compile the code you gave below (using gcc 4.6.3 from
20120406), I get:
warning: left shift count = width of type [enabled by default]
That is even without any sort of warning flags - and you
Hello,
It's a known fact that shifting by more or equal bits as an integer
type contains is undefined behavior per C standard,
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7214263/unexpected-behavior-of-bitwise-shifting-using-gcc
has relevant quotes and references.
It's less known the rules of dealing
Hello,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:06:51 -0500
Peter Bigot big...@acm.org wrote:
This decision was intentional, as documented in
https://sourceforge.net/p/mspgcc/bugs/118/. My recollection is that
the choice of how to make things consistent was informed by similar
behavior in the contemporaneous
11 matches
Mail list logo
