Re: Handling of extern inline in c99 mode

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:02:55AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > 1) Implement a function attribute which is the equivalent of "extern >inline". Backport support for this attribute to all open branches. >Try to persuade the glibc developers to use this feature instead of >"extern inl

Re: Handling of extern inline in c99 mode

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 03:05:33PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I think it would be better to have GLIBC changed before changing the > behavior of the compiler. It might even be better to have a released > version of GLIBC with the changes. fixincludes causes sufficient > problems for people

Re: How to grow the Fortran I/O parameter struct and keep ABI compatibility

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:59:05AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote: > { > st_parameter_common common; > GFC_IO_INT rec; > [...lots of other struct members...] > /* Private part of the structure. The compiler just needs > to reserve enough space. */ > union > { > struct >

Re: How to grow the Fortran I/O parameter struct and keep ABI compatibility

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 02:38:39AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >Now, we also sometimes want to increase the size of the private > >stuff, and I don't see how we can do that in a way that keeps ABI > >compatibility, because the bits in the private stuff are always > >used by the library. So, I

Re: Aliasing: reliable code or not?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 11:36:19PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Or you can use constructor expressions to make this slightly more > elegant, though I retain the assumptions about type sizes: > > char *foo1(char* buf){ > memcpy(buf, (char[]) { 42 }, 1); > buf += 1; > memcpy(buf, (short[])

Re: [Bug middle-end/29695] [4.1/4.2/4.3 Regression] Folding breaks (a & 0x80) ? 0x80 : 0 for unsigned char or unsigned short a

On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:07:18AM -, chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > > > --- Comment #6 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-01 00:07 > --- > Subject: Bug 29695 > > Author: chaoyingfu > Date: Fri Dec 1 00:05:26 2006 > New Revision: 119383 > > URL: http://gc

Re: Unwinding CFI gcc practice of assumed `same value' regs

On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 02:40:22PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > My reading is that the "ABI authoring body" for GNU systems or the > "compilation system authoring body" for GNU compilers already specifies > that the default rule is same_value for callee-saves registers (as chosen > by each partic

Re: Unwinding CFI gcc practice of assumed `same value' regs

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 03:26:34PM +, Andrew Haley wrote: > Ulrich Drepper writes: > > Andrew Haley wrote: > > > Null-terminating the call stack is too well-established practice to be > > > changed now. > > > > Which does not mean that the mistake should hold people back. > > Sure it doe

Re: cross mode -fstack-protector ?

On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:15:55AM +0200, Balint Cristian wrote: > Is it a bug ? > > Maybe i still dont understand how this is emmited, but anyone knows why a > cross-compiler vs normal compiler using the -fstack-protector option why > will act differnetly ? > > e.g nm on same object compiled w

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Wed, Jan 31, 2007 at 11:42:12AM +, Andrew Haley wrote: > Andrew Haley writes: > > > > > > It does look like we are scaring away some people with the long > > > build times and memory hungry build of libjava. I only started > > > building libgcj again recently when I got a > > > 3G

Re: gcc-4.3, glibc and AC_PROG_CC_STDC

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 09:51:33PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > > Given that there is still discussion and work on GCC for this topic > > anyway[1], I don't think Autoconf should be doing anything just yet. Yeah, it is just too early. > Both of the solutions that Bruno suggested seem too drastic t

Re: How should __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) behave?

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:21:41PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Should __attribute__ ((gnu_inline)) be treated the same as a gnu89 > extern inline definition? Or should the extern part be optional? > That is, should there be a difference between these two definitions? > > extern __attribute

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 08:49:38AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I don't know how to evaluate Danny B's claims that these things are > rare. We don't have nearly as a big a customer base as Red Hat or SuSE, > and our customer base compiles a different class of applications on > different hardware,

Re: Question for removing trailing whitespaces (not vertical tab) from source

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:22:50PM +, Andrew Haley wrote: > Feel free to do it to your local copy. Don't do it to the gcc source > code repository. Well, please do it on all your checkings - all lines you have changed to fix some bug or add a new feature shouldn't have trailing whitespace and

Re: libgomp failures on powerpc-apple-darwin8

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:41PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > Interestingly, while... > > gcc-4 pr30703.C -fmessage-length=0 -fopenmp -O0 -L/sw/lib/gcc4.2/lib -lgomp > -lstdc++ -lm -m32 -o ./pr30703.exe > /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: > __Unwind_Resume > collect2: ld returned 1 exit statu

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 08:56:10AM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > We've been considering two solutions, the 9 bit codes vs the subcode > alternative. > > The 9 bit solution is considered simpler and without any memory penalty > but slows down the compiler and doesn't increase the number of codes v

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:37:38AM -0400, Doug Gregor wrote: > Even if we only use subcodes for the less often used codes, I think we > still take the performance hit. The problem is that it's very messy to I'm sure smaller hit than when going to 9 bit tree code, and on i386/x86_64 maybe even than

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 11:04:16AM -0600, Kevin Handy wrote: > >#define LANG_TREE_CODE(NODE) (TREE_CODE (NODE) == LANG_CODE ? > >((tree_with_subcode *)(NODE))->subcode : TREE_CODE (NODE)) > > > This subcode idea feels like a bug attractor to me. > > For example: #defines have enough problems wi

Re: Segfault on OpenMP program

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:38:24PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 18 April 2007 00:19, FX Coudert wrote: > > Someone reported on bug on a trivial statically-linked Fortran progam > > with OpenMP and a I/O operation. I can reproduce the segfault, which > > happens at: > >... > > Andrew sugg

Re: Segfault on OpenMP program

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:38:40PM +0200, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > Is this only advised with parallel programs, or is it a general rule? > In my research, I statically link all my benchmarks because that I > measure stuff about them using instrumentation on a bunch of computer > (which might have

Re: Hot and Cold Partitioning (Was: GCC 4.1 Projects)

On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 12:43:35PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > Well, even then, using of the cold section can increase the hot section > size, depending on target, and for some > targets the maximum supported distance of the cold section. > > For SH, using the cold section, you get (for non-PI

Re: memcpy(a,b,CONST) is not inlined by gcc 3.4.1 in Linux kernel

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 05:37:06PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote: > typedef unsigned int size_t; > > static inline void * __memcpy(void * to, const void * from, size_t n) > { > int d0, d1, d2; > __asm__ __volatile__( > "rep ; movsl\n\t" > "testb $2,%b4\n\t" > "je 1f\n\t" >

Re: Semi-Latent Bug in tree vectorizer

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:52:02AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > There's a rather annoying bug in the vectorizer which can cause us to > have SSA_NAMEs which are used, but never defined. > > Consider this testcase compiled with -msse2 -ftree-vectorize: > > typedef char achar __attribute__ ((__ali

Re: Semi-Latent Bug in tree vectorizer

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:11:33AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 06:58:54PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > See middle-end/20794, there is discussion about declaring this > > invalid. When a type with size that is not an integral multiple > > of alignme

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:49:39AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > sparc-sun-solaris2.9 is OK for C/C++/Objective-C/Ada/F95, except > > FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-apply4.c execution test Is that a regression though? builtin-apply4.c is a new test. Jakub

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 03:05:17PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from: > > /pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050410/ > > on the usual gcc.gnu.org mirrors: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html > > I would like to know whether or not we have achieved the objectiv

Re: GCC 4.0 RC2

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:59:42AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I don't have a date for RC2 yet; that will depend in part on when Jason > is able to fix the C++ issues. However, I would certainly hope that we > could get it done shortly. FYI, I have bootstrapped/regtested 4.0 RC1 with: > Here

Re: GCC 4.0 RC2

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 12:37:00PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >>Sadly, it's become clear there's going to have to be a second release > >>candidate. In particular, there are some wrong-code bugs that are popping > >>up on real packages on primary platforms. Jason Merill is looking into > >>som

Re: libgcc_s.so 3.4 vs 3.0 compatibility

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 02:23:26PM +0200, Peter FELECAN wrote: > Currently the libgcc_s.so library has the same version in 3.4 and 4.0, > i.e libgcc_s.so.1 (SONAME = libgcc_s.so.1). > > Is this as expected? Yes. > Are the 2 libraries compatible? Interchangeable? Looking in the map > file, I don'

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:47:06AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > > > And, yes, we clearly need to do something about the libjava build. > > OK, I know nothing about libtool so this might not be possible, but > IMO the easiest way of making a dramatic difference is to

Re: gcc 3.4.2 stack variable lifetime analysis

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 07:22:12AM -0700, Earl Chew wrote: > Can anyone tell me if there is a patch for this problem? Yes, there is: ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/gcc/releases/gcc-4.0.0/diffs/gcc-3.4.3-4.0.0.diff.bz2 FYI, this is PR middle-end/9997 > Consider: > > void bar(char*); > > v

Re: gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp does not supported installed-compiler testing

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:26:36PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > 2005-05-16 Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * gcc.dg/compat/generate-random.c (config.h): Do not include. > (limits.h): Include unconditionally. > (stdlib.h): Likewise. > * gcc.dg/compat/generate-random

Why doesn't gcc.pot use gcc-internal-format?

Hi! Bug http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21364 shows that it is very dangerous to not check format strings in translations. No translation of a particular message is always better than a bad translation that causes compiler crash. Now, looking at gettext, it seems to support GCC inter

Re: libgcc_s.so.1 exception handling behaviour depending on glibc version

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > Could there please at some point be serious discussion of making this a > supported way of working? In this case dl_iterate_phdr is weak so could > the decision about whether to use it or not could be made at runtime, not > build time?

Re: 4.0 regression: missing debug info for global variables in C with -O2

On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:13:19PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > You can reproduce it using: > > static int i; > > int main(void) > > { > >i += 3; > >i *= 5; > >return 0; > > } > > > > and readelf and looking for the DW_TAG_variable tag. > > Yes; in fact '

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:20:49PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a > > > difference between source code portability and "re

Re: ERROR in the gfortran testsuite

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 05:24:15PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:40:37PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > Right now on powerpc-darwin with the following versions: > > Expect version is 5.38.0 > > Tcl version is 8.4 > > Framework version is1.4.4 > > > > I

Re: duplicate -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:46PM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > Hello! > > the sequence used for linking on x86 (but most archs will have it too) > -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s > --no-as-needed > contains duplicate. Is this really necessary? > > Wil

Re: sizeof(int) in testsuite

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 02:07:57AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >Doesn't "is-effective-target ilp32" test for 32 bits int? > > Good point! I forgot about that. My brain is stuck in some other year. > > That doesn't let you adjust the test based on the compiler, but it does > let you skip test

Re: sizeof(int) in testsuite

On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:49:03PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c assumes sizeof(int) is 4. > This of course fails on any target where sizeof(int) is 2. They may > fail when sizeof(int) is 8 too, or at least they won't be testing the > full range of possibil

Re: duplicate -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 10:56:37AM +0100, Nix wrote: > The point of that trickery is to avoid introducing a dependency on the > shared libgcc for programs that don't use exception handling. If they > do, it'll come from the shared libgcc: otherwise, the shared libgcc gets > entirely dropped thanks

Re: Howto biarch compiler default to -m32?

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 10:50:16AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > On Wednesday 08 June 2005 09:56, René Rebe wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I did this once in the past but lost my transscript ... What was the > > recommended way to get a sparc64-gnu-linux (or other biarch) compiler that > > defaults to

po file update

On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 04:43:47PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Right now, the libstdc++ versioning/ABI situation is is all that stands > between us and 4.0.1 RC2, now that Jakub has fixed the GLIBC miscompilation. Weren't we waiting for the updated po files (at least for the translations that w

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:56:52AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > I would be especially grateful for people testing this on primary hosts > > that are not linux. In particular, AIX and Solaris. > > OK on Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6, but not OK on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10: Can you please post output from

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > The diff is attached. Except that -_ZNSt13basic_istreamIwSt11char_traitsIwEE6ignoreEil@@GLIBCXX_3.4 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT the diff just shows the expected 24 changes of @@GLIBCXX_3.4 symbols to @GLIBCXX_3.4 + @@GLIBCXX_3.4.5 and 2 add

Re: Forward: gcc-4.0.1-b20050607.de.po [REJECTED]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 11:27:15PM +0200, "Martin v. L?wis" wrote: > > This worked before. Why shouldn't it? Please tell me how to work Before the string was marked as c-format and therefore gettext did not complain. But GCC whenever it tried to issue that diagnostics worked in english, but crash

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC2

s from the linker is what is glibc using for years). The alternative is to add _GLIBCXX_SYMVER_COMPATIBILITY renames like ATM include/bits/char_traits.h has to the remaining 22 templates, which would be cleaner thing for compatibility.cc, but further uglification of the installed headers.

Re: expanding builtins

On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 10:11:50AM -0400, James Lemke wrote: > I have a situation where a structure is not properly aligned and I want > to copy it to fix this. > > I'm aware that -no-builtin-memcpy will suppress the expansion of > memcpy() (force library calls) for a whole module. Is it possible

Re: var_tracking question

On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 09:25:47PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > My m32c port is generating tracking notes that look like this: > > (var_location 0x2a95758dd0 (parallel [ > (expr_list:REG_DEP_TRUE (reg/v:SI 0 r0 [orig:123 remainder_size ] > [123]) > (const_int 0 [0x0])

Re: A trouble with libssp in one-tree builds

On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:50:08PM -0700, Kazu Hirata wrote: > I am having a trouble with libssp in one-tree builds. That is, if I > try to build binutils and gcc at the same time, libssp/configure > complains while compiling (and linking) the following program and the > build process stops. > >

Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3

On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 04:33:43PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Eric Botcazou wrote: > > >>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather > >>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on > >>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expec

Re: isinf

On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:27:06PM +0900, Hiroshi Fujishima wrote: > Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Why not just use AC_HAVE_FUNCS(isinf)? IIUC this is part of a configure > > script, although whether it is autoconf generated is not clear so far. > > Though I don't know the why

Re: PATCH: Enable FTZ/DAZ for SSE via fast math

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:09:04AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:58:51PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 02:30:46PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > There is a minor problem. How can I add crtfastmath.o for SSE targets > > > only? > > > > You don't.

Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:38:01PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > This test assumes that integer constants passed as varargs are > promoted to a type at least as big as "long", which is not valid on 16 > bit hosts. For example: > > void > f1 (int i, ...) > { > va_start (gap, i); > x = va_arg (

Re: Undefined behavior in genautomata.c?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:03:48AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Anyway, the real fix is to simply not attempt to derive information when > the access is through a pointer (IE it is not related to structs at all, > it's the fact that these are heap allocated), unless you have info about > the mallo

Re: Undefined behavior in genautomata.c?

On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:22:56AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 15:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:03:48AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > Anyway, the real fix is to simply not attempt to derive information when > > &

Re: Char *Foo = "ABC" or Char Foo[] = "ABC"" ?

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 11:39:46AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > That said, some ABIs over-align arrays, and so you might get more > padding with arrays than raw strings. But it'll be less than the > size of an extra pointer variable. Plus constant merging will not happen (at least not unless

Re: Heads up: many recent Fortran SPEC regressions

On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:47:33AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 12:39:14AM +0200, Paul Thomas wrote: > > Have you made any progress on fixing this? I would rather that the > > debug information is not available than that equivalence is broken. > > My mind is going.

[gomp] C++ #pragma omp for and -fno-for-scope

Hi! While looking at PR c++/24512, I have noticed that for #pragma omp {,parallel }for loops we don't handle -fno-for-scope and don't emit the default error messages that point people to the problem otherwise. So my question is, should we consider #pragma omp for and #pragma omp parallel for a se

Re: Vectorizing HIRLAM 4: complicated access patterns examined.

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 02:01:43PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [ Bringing this back to fortran@, taking the optimizer guys out of CC: ] > > Quoting Toon Moene: > > I still have to construct a bug report of something that confuses the parser > > and that basically looks like this: > > > >

Re: [RFC] Enabling loop unrolls at -O3?

On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:32:43PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > If -O1 means "optimize, but be fast", what does -O2 mean? And what does -O3 > mean? If -O2 means "the current set of optimizer that we put in -O2", that's > unsatisfying for me. `-O2' Optimize even more. GCC performs nearly all

Re: BROKEN: pthreads and c++ statically linked

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:31:56AM -0500, Dixon, Lee L. wrote: > I really don't know what I could be doing wrong, but on a _stock_ FC4 > install, I'm having a segfault in a pthread call when > statically linked and including iostream (or STL includes like string) > > Here's the code: > > #include

Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:05:20PM +0100, Christian Joensson wrote: > Currently, on the gomp branch, I get this: > > if /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile > /usr/local/src/branch/objdir.gomp/./gcc/xgcc > -B/usr/local/src/branch/objdir.gomp/./gcc/ > -B/usr/local/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ > -B/us

Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 05:00:43PM +0100, Christian Joensson wrote: > Sure, here's the (relevant(?) part of) generated libgomp_f.h: > > static inline void > omp_check_defines (void) > { > char test[(24 != sizeof (omp_lock_t) >|| 4 != __alignof (omp_lock_t) >|| 24 != sizeo

Re: [gomp] ./libgomp_f.h:71: error: size of array 'test' is negative

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:28:45PM +0100, Christian Joensson wrote: > > Before I experiment with that, pls note that the compiler is (default) > > configured for target sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu and with the configure > > option --with-cpu=v7 resulting in default v7 (32-bit) code. May this > > "tri

SVN conversion glitch?

Hi! While doing svn diff, I've noticed gcc/config/i386/xm-dgux.h gcc/config/i386/xm-sysv3.h gcc/config/i386/xm-sun.h gcc/config/i386/scodbx.h files popped out of nowhere on the trunk (and through 4.1 branching also on gcc-4_1-branch). The files according to ChangeLogs were clearly removed back in

ppc-linux and s390-linux compilers requiring 64-bit HWI?

Hi! What's the reason why ppc-linux and s390-linux targetted GCC requires 64-bit HWI these days? If it is a native compiler, this means using long long in a huge part of the compiler and therefore slower compile times and bigger memory consumption. ppc-linux configured compiler (nor s390-linux) is

s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1

Hi! There are several g*dg/compat/ tests failing that show ABI incompatibilities: FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t024 cp_compat_x_tst.o-cp_compat_y_alt.o execute FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t024 cp_compat_x_alt.o-cp_compat_y_tst.o execute FAIL: tmpdir-g++.dg-struct-layout-1/t026 cp

Re: C++ vague linkage data

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote: > when gcc emits vague linkage data for C++ like vtables it makes them all > weak. Is there some reason why this needs to be done? > > If I'm getting it right, based on e.g. on the comment in binutils/bfd/elf.c > saying that they are

Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 01:44:44PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > No, it wasn't. The change was supposed to affect structures only. > As I understand the documentation ,the expected behaviour would be to > limit the alignment > to BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT, unless the user has specified a larger alignmen

Re: s390{,x} ABI incompatibility between gcc 4.0 and 4.1

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:01:25PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > >If we use MIN (tree_low_cst (TYPE_SIZE (type), 0), BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT) > >here, I'm afraid that would be much bigger ABI incompatibility. > >Currently, say > >typedef char __attribute__((vector_size (64))) v64qi; > >is 64 bytes align

Re: weakref and static

On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 06:46:39PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Err... The above is a bit misleading, in that it at first appeared to > be referring to the target of the weakref, not to the weakref itself. > The weakref may alias to something that is static or not (the whole > point is being ab

Re: mainline and 4.1 bootstrap broken on i686-pc-linux-gnu

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 07:44:39PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > 2005-12-13 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > PR debug/25023 > PR target/25293 > * expr.c (emit_move_resolve_push): Handle PRE_MODIFY > and POST_MODIFY with CONST

[PATCH] Fix bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu

push as well. Ok to commit if it succeeds? 2005-12-13 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR debug/25023 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_force_to_memory): Always use SImode push for HImode in -m32. * gcc.dg/pr25023.c: New test. --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c.jj 20

Re: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 09:25:45PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > >While we could use pushhi2 insn > >(would need to use pre_modify rather than pre_dec etc.), it wouldn't > >buy us anything. > > > Presumably, it would prevent a partial register stall. Only if we use the real pushw instruction. Bu

Re: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu

an older incomplete version of the patch, ix86_free_from_memory obviously needs corresponding adjustement. 2005-12-13 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR debug/25023 * config/i386/i386.c (ix86_force_to_memory): Always use SImode push for HImode in -m32.

Re: unable to build head on Fedora

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:34:17PM -0600, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My fresh check out on the head build using the gcc shipped with > Fedora Core 4 has failed for the past couple of days with this error: A day and half. > /home/joel/gcc-work/head/b-native/./gcc/xgcc > -B/hom

Re: weakref and static

On Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 10:56:51AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > I thus propose your change to be reverted, and request you to explain > > what you were trying to fix with this patch so that I can try to do > > something about it. > > Nevermind this bit :-) > > > Jakub, do you have any furth

Re: GCC 4.1 ICE during CPU2000/177.mesa build

On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 11:04:11PM +0300, Grigory Zagorodnev wrote: > GCC 4.1 is getting ICE in ' refers_to_regno_for_reload_p' while > compiling CPU2000/177.mesa on ia32 Linux. > > Is that a known issue? > This is what I got: > > triangle.c: In function 'simple_z_textured_triangle': > triangle.

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:34:16PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: > We've had Real Problems with this feature since it was introduced. I > expect it'll take at least another two or three months before it > settles down and starts to work on most targets; that's only to be > expected for such a

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:20:44PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: > I'm not sure what "just fine" definition you're using here. I don't > think you can say it's been extensively tested, and I'm fairly sure I > can find a bunch of bugs in it. I have already filed one as gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 06:39:58PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2005, at 6:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >It has nothing to do with libgfortran actually, libgfortran only ever > >uses the weak pthread function aliases within libgfortran. > >The reason why we

Re: RFC: An option to link against static gcc libraries

On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:58:16AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > > One, this will not work at all libobjc or libgcj since they > > require lookups at runtime. > > Are you saying "gcc -static" doesn't work with libobjc and libgcj? It certainly doesn't work with libgcj (well, you can link in libgcj.a, b

Re: RFC: generalize STARTFILE/ENDFILE_SPEC for linux

On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 02:38:17PM +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > for HAVE_ENDFILE_MATH and HAVE_NOSTARTFILE_STATIC another possibility > would be > %{static:%:if-exists-else(crtbeginT.o%s crtbegin.o%s)} > %{ffast-math|funsafe-math-optimizations:%:if-exists(crtfastmath.o%s)} That's IMHO a bad

Re: merges

On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:12:36AM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> mysql> delete from longdescs where length(thetext) > 100; > >> Query OK, 251 rows affected (2 min 12.11 sec) > > > > Thank you. > > > >> I may just set up a pre-commit hook to che

Re: libgomp and OMP_NUM_THREADS

gomp/team.c: > 293 > #4 0x29e0 in main (argc=1, argv=0xb714) at omp_hello.c:33 On redhat/gcc-4_1-branch (which has also a gomp branch backport) I'm using following patch that cures it, but I bet it won't apply cleanly to the trunk. 2005-11-25 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECT

Whitespace at the start of first line of commit

Hi! I've noticed that a couple of Jason's commits show up in gcc-cvs in mutt as: [gcc r10-5937] ?PR c++/92582 - ICE with member template as requirement. The ? in there comes from a tab character, the full subject is like Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bgcc_r10-5937=5D_=09PR_c++/92582_-_ICE_with_member_temp

Re: git conversion in progress

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:34:13PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Jan 14 2020, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > git clone --reference original-gcc ... > > Don't use --reference. It is too easy to lose work if you don't know > what you are doing. Wouldn't git clone --reference original-gcc --dis

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:36:11PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > The missing sanitizer reports about violations of function signatures > for indirect calls, like: > > $ cat sanitize-function.cpp > #include > > void f() {} > void (*fnpointer) (int); > > void save () { > fnpointer = reinterpret_

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > seems to be what they emit on x86_64. Now, wonder what they do on other > > targets > > Other targets are not supported :P > > > , and how does it play with all the other options that add stuff > > to the start of functions, e.g.

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:56:38PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > On 1/14/20 1:59 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:57:47PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > > > > seems to be what they emit on x86_64. Now, wonder what they do on other > > > > targe

Re: Do we want to add -fsanitize=function?

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 04:15:54PM +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > On 1/14/20 3:00 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > But then the compiler should just fail if you mix the two, rather than > > emitting something that doesn't work at all. > > Or better fix the design, so that it ca

Towards removal of gcc/DATESTAMP

Hi! The following command prints the same string as DATESTAMP file contains in all gcc-7 and later based branches I've tried so far (and nothing when e.g. invoked from within svn checkout). o=$(git config --get gcc-config.upstream); test -z "$o" && o=origin; r=$(cat BASE-VER | cut -d. -f 1); b=

Re: Towards removal of gcc/DATESTAMP

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 04:52:12PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The following command prints the same string as DATESTAMP file > contains in all gcc-7 and later based branches I've tried so far (and nothing > when > e.g. invoked from within svn checkout). Jonathan wondered

Re: git conversion in progress

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 06:06:36PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > I notice that git.html on the website doesn't match what's currently in > > wwwdocs git, is automatic updating broken? > > /www/gcc/wwwdocs-checkout/cgi-bin/gcc-gitref.cgi had local cha

gcc-cvs mails for personal/vendor branches for merge commits

Hi! As I said on IRC, I have done on our vendor branch redhat/gcc-10-branch a simple git merge r10-5981-ga52d93219c63d38fa9a97d0eb727e7fcc935e9b3 git push origin redhat/gcc-10-branch:refs/vendors/redhat/heads/gcc-10-branch which merged in just a few hours from trunk, but that resulted in 20 separa

Re: gcc-cvs mails for personal/vendor branches for merge commits

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:56:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > As I said on IRC, I have done on our vendor branch redhat/gcc-10-branch > > a simple > > git merge r10-5981-ga52d93219c63d38fa9a97d0eb727e7fcc935e9b3 > > git push origin redhat/gcc-10-branch:refs/vendors/redhat/heads/gcc-10-branch >

Re: gcc-cvs mails for personal/vendor branches for merge commits

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 12:40:02PM +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I think there's a similar issue not just for merges but for > > non-fast-forward pushes as well. As a glibc example, consider > > and the long > > series of subsequent

Re: gcc-cvs mails for personal/vendor branches for merge commits

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 02:15:21PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > The alternative I suggested to Joseph yesterday was a separate mailing list > for all the personal and vendor commits. But I think that would need a > change to the hooks infrastructure. Would that solve it? We have arou

Re: 1-800-GIT-HELP: Fixing a commit message?

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > It turns out I fumbled the commit message on the commit below to wwwdocs. > > Instead of > Redirect cvswrite.html to gitwrite.html instead of svnwrite.html. > I committed this with a message of > Redirect cvs.html to git.h

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >