[M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Tony Hosking]

On 6 Oct 2010, at 09:20, Jay K wrote:

> I don't know, but there are many obvious candidates.
> We don't generate much type information, and we generate now some incorrect type information (wrong level
> of pointers sometimes on structs)
> In this case, it was getting a null pointer:
> edit /dev2/cm3/m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/gcc/ipa.c line 164 
>       if (DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION (decl))
> 
> 
> configure -enable-checking still complains about many things. Though I have fixed some.

Yes, this has been most helpful.  I would like to push it further but don't currently have the time.

>   Turning it on all the time makes things much slower and I think also actually breaks things (!).

Yikes, really?

> It doesn't like the bitfield refs, something about missing a "VUSE".
>    Maybe volatile would be the better tradeoff??

I think ultimately we should be good gcc citizens and generate proper type information.  Then we can use properly named symbolic bitfield references.  (So long as we can ensure that the front-end and back-end agree on layout.)

> It doesn't like various expressions that mix integer types.
>   These shouldn't be hard to fix, and I have fixed some.
>   They included that we were mixing up the return types of all functions that return
>    integers smaller than a word.

RIght.

> It complains about the module initializers confusing structs and struct pointers in their return type.

Should be fixable.

> However I think not using the bitfield refs generates incorrect code now.
>  ie: when I address configure -enable-checking, I get bad code.
>   I have to look into this more.

Sigh.

> The configure -enable-checking problems seem to be somewhat large and very long standing.
> 
> 
> Configure -enable-checking also complains something about our use of static chain.
> It was hard enough just to get the static chain working 4.5...I don't look forward to
> understanding also figuring out why configure enable-checking doesn't like it.

Hmm.  Do we know what Pascal/Ada/D and friends do in this instance?

> 
> 
>  - Jay
> 
> ----------------------------------------
>> From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
>> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:11:00 -0400
>> To: jkrell at elego.de
>> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
>> Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
>> 
>> What's wrong with them?
>> 
>> On 6 Oct 2010, at 11:03, Jay Krell wrote:
>> 
>>> CVSROOT: /usr/cvs
>>> Changes by: jkrell at birch. 10/10/06 11:03:54
>>> 
>>> Modified files:
>>> cm3/m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/gcc/: ipa.c
>>> 
>>> Log message:
>>> neuter 4.3 cgraph_remove_unreachable_nodes that doesn't like our trees
>> 
>