|
Message
From: "Robert Cragie" <rcc@j...>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:33:34 -0000
Subject: RE: [openrisc] gcc 'long long'
Is the 'long long' problem the only known problem with using the -O2
optimisation?
Robert Cragie, Design Engineer
_______________________________________________________________
Jennic Ltd, Furnival Street, Sheffield, S1 4QT, UK
http://www.jennic.com Tel: +44 (0) 114 281 2655
_______________________________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openrisc@o...
> [mailto:owner-openrisc@o...]On Behalf Of Matjaz Breskvar
> Sent: 24 November 2003 16:40
> To: openrisc@o...
> Subject: [openrisc] gcc 'long long'
>
>
> * Scott Furman (sfurman@r...) wrote:
>
> > >Yes, there were reports of problems compiling eCos with -O2
> optimizations
> > >on opencores gcc-3.2.3 compiler. i think going to -O solved
> it. (it in the
> > >archives a few months ago)
> > >
> > I encountered bugs with both long long and (soft) double floating point
> > support using gcc 3.1 and have made some fixes to the compiler to solve
> > these problems. I haven't submitted my patches because my changes
> > modify the ABI, rendering object files incompatible with code compiled
> > by the unmodified compiler. (The calling convention I use is more
> > efficient than the existing 3.1 version: 64-bit values (long longs and
> > doubles) are passed by value in registers rather than as references.)
> >
> > Is anyone actively maintaining the gcc versions ? I could share my
> > changes if we were willing to tolerate an ABI change.
>
> This is from email some time ago...
>
> There's been no objections against ABI change regarding 'long long' in
> gcc. Since Scott's implementation is also more efficient i think we should
> merge it (it doesn't work now anyway).
>
> Scott can you please post the patch or even better just commit it to cvs ?
>
> regards,
> p.
>
|
 |
Browse
