Re: Volatile operations and PRE
On 08 Nov 2006 08:07:50 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 2006-11-07 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * gimplify.c (fold_indirect_ref_rhs): Use > > STRIP_USELESS_TYPE_CONVERSION rather than STRIP_NOPS. > > Regtested x86-64-gnu-linux. The only interesting failure was > mayalias-2.c, but that also fails before the patch. This is OK for active branches. I have committed this to mainline and will continue with the branches after testing. Richard.
Re: vectorizer data dependency graph
On 11/15/06, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is a ddg in this patch if somebody wants the classic Allen&Kennedy way to look at the dependences: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/OptimizationCourse?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=loop-distribution-patch-against-gcc-4.1.0-release.patch Any plans to merge this into the FSF trunk? Gr. Steven
ICE while bootstrapping trunk on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00
On trunk Revision: 118816 /SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0/./gcc/xgcc -B/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0/./gcc/ -B/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/bin/ -B/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/lib/ -isystem /SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/include -isystem /SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/sys-include -O2 -O2 -g -O2 -DIN_GCC-W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -isystem ./include -fPIC -g -DHAVE_GTHR_DEFAULT -DIN_LIBGCC2 -D__GCC_FLOAT_NOT_NEEDED -I. -I. -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/. -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/../include -I./../intl -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/include -I/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/install/include -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../libdecnumber -DL__gcc_bcmp -c /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c -o libgcc/./__gcc_bcmp.o /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__gcc_bcmp': /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c:1970: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. gmake[4]: *** [libgcc/./__gcc_bcmp.o] Error 1 gmake[4]: Leaving directory `/disk1/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0/gcc' gmake[3]: *** [libgcc.a] Error 2 gmake[3]: Leaving directory `/disk1/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0/gcc' gmake[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Error 2 gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/disk1/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0' gmake[1]: *** [stage2-bubble] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/disk1/SCRATCH/gcc-build/HP-UX/hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00/gcc-4.3.0/gcc-4.3.0' gmake: *** [all] Error 2 Rainer
Control Flow Graph
Hi all, i must use cfg library to build and manipulate a control flow graph. I have read more but i have not found an answer to my question: It is possible to build a cfg structure directly from a file .cfg ?? How i can building a cfg from a file?? Thanks to all, lastnote -- Scopri se hai Vinto un Tv Color LCD! Clicca qui http://click.libero.it/webnation15nov06
[M32C-ELF] Correct way of setting reset and interrupt vectors
Hi all,
I recently started a microcontroller project based on the Renesas M16C
family. I successfully built the GNU toolchain (binutils-2.17,
gcc-4.1.1, newlib from CVS) and are now able to build executables for
the M32C-ELF target. Great! Now, two questions come up:
1) What is the correct way to set the reset vector? When just providing
the main() function, the start code is successfully linked in, but the
reset vector is not set appropriately. In order to do this manually, I
use the following code:
void start(void);
typedef void (*ifunc)(void) __attribute__ ((mode(SI)));
const ifunc __attribute__ ((section(".resetvec"))) reset_vector = start;
I'm not sure, if this is the correct way... Why doesn't the linker set
the reset vector by itself?
2) What is the correct way to set the "relocatable vector table"
(interrupt vector)? I tried the code below, but it doesn't seem to work:
void timer0_isr(void) __attribute__ ((interrupt));
void dummy_isr(void) __attribute__ ((interrupt));
static const ifunc interrupt_table[64] = {
dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, // 0-4
[...]
dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, // 15-19
dummy_isr, timer0_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, // 20-24
dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, // 25-29
[...]
dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr, dummy_isr // 60-63
};
void timer0_isr(void)
{
// ISR stuff
}
void dummy_isr(void)
{
}
int main(void)
{
// here: configuration of processor mode registers et. al.
asm("ldc #0x, intbh");
asm("ldc _interrupt_table, intbl");
// here: init and start timer
asm("fset I");
while(1);
return 0;
}
Perhaps someone can point me to an example project for M16C (or
compatible), that uses the native startup code and works with interrupts.
BTW, does someone know a free flash tool for GNU/Linux that proved to
work with Renesas M16C?
--
Thanks a lot,
Florian
Re: libgfortran still fails to build for sh-elf
François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
I suggest that you test the following patch and report back to us:
I got the patch wrong (it's not a real printf function we have there):
Index: libgfortran/runtime/error.c
===
--- libgfortran/runtime/error.c (revision 118806)
+++ libgfortran/runtime/error.c (working copy)
@@ -285,7 +285,7 @@
if (!options.locus || cmp == NULL || cmp->filename == NULL)
return;
- st_printf ("At line %d of file %s\n", cmp->line, cmp->filename);
+ st_printf ("At line %d of file %s\n", (int) cmp->line, cmp->filename);
}
That still leaves the undefined symbol error:
/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/sh-multi-elf/newlib/
-isystem
/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/sh-multi-elf/newlib/targ-include
-isystem /home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/srcw/newlib/libc/include
-B/usr/local/sh-multi-elf/bin/ -B/usr/local/sh-multi-elf/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/sh-multi-elf/include -isystem
/usr/local/sh-multi-elf/sys-include
-L/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/./ld -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../../srcw/libgfortran -I. -iquote../../../srcw/libgfortran/io
-I../../../srcw/libgfortran/../gcc
-I../../../srcw/libgfortran/../gcc/config -I../.././gcc -D_GNU_SOURCE
-std=gnu99 -Wall -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -Wextra -Wwrite-strings -O2 -g -O2 -c
../../../srcw/libgfortran/runtime/error.c -o error.o
../../../srcw/libgfortran/runtime/error.c:334: error:
'_gfortran_runtime_error' aliased to undefined symbol
'__gfortrani_runtime_error'
make[2]: *** [error.lo] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-multi-elf-f/sh-multi-elf/libgfortran'
Re: Control Flow Graph
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/15/06 06:06:
Hi all,
i must use cfg library to build and manipulate a control flow graph. I have
read more but i have not found an answer to my question: It is possible to
build a cfg structure directly from a file .cfg ?? How i can building a cfg
from a file??
Thanks to all,
Ask for a dump using the -blocks switch and post-process the dump file
with the attached script.
$ gcc -fdump-tree-all-blocks file.c
$ dump2dot file.c.XXXt.yyy
It generates a graphviz file with the flow graph of the function. The
script is fairly simplistic and will not handle more than one function
too gracefully, but that should be easy to change.
#!/bin/sh
#
# (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation
# Contributed by Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
#
# This script is Free Software, and it can be copied, distributed and
# modified as defined in the GNU General Public License. A copy of
# its license can be downloaded from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
if [ "$1" = "" ] ; then
echo "usage: $0 file"
echo
echo "Generates a GraphViz .dot graph file from 'file'."
echo "It assumes that 'file' has been generated with -fdump-tree-...-blocks"
echo
exit 1
fi
file=$1
out=$file.dot
echo "digraph cfg {"> $out
echo " node [shape=box]" >>$out
echo ' size="11,8.5"' >>$out
echo>>$out
(grep -E '# BLOCK|# PRED:|# SUCC:' $file | \
sed -e 's:\[\([0-9\.%]*\)*\]::g;s:([a-z_,]*)::g' | \
awk '{ #print $0; \
if ($2 == "BLOCK") \
{ \
bb = $3;\
print "\t", bb, "[label=\"", bb, "\", style=filled,
color=gray]"; \
} \
else if ($2 == "PRED:") \
{ \
for (i = 3; i <= NF; i++) \
print "\t", $i, "->", bb, ";"; \
} \
}') >> $out
echo "}">> $out
modulo scheduling improvements
Hi,
I just posted on the wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SwingModuloScheduling) a
list of items to improve the GCC modulo scheduler (SMS). We've been looking
into this on and off in the past year, while trying to tune it for ppc970
and then for the Cell. With relatively small tweaks, SMS is starting to
show rather nice impact on the Cell SPU; For example, on a simple summation
program from the testsuite - vect-widen-mult-sum.c:
int main1 (short *in, int off, short scale, int n)
{
int i;
int sum = 0;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
sum += ((int) in[i] * (int) in[i+off]) >> scale;
}
return sum;
}
Compiling the above for the Cell SPU (with a few local patches we have, to
be submitted to mainline - see wiki for details), SMS brings over 40%
improvement (when unrolling is not enabled; SMS doesn't always improve more
than unrolling does, and at present, SMS does not work on unrolled loops -
one of the items on the wiki list...):
-O3 runtime: 880
-O3 sms runtime: 482
-O3 unrollruntime: 312
-O3 -ftree-vectorize runtime: 150
-O3 -ftree-vectorize sms runtime: 86
-O3 -ftree-vectorize unroll runtime: 96
where:
unroll = -funroll-loops -fvariable-expansion-in-unroller
sms = -fmodulo-sched
The list does not include all possible improvements to SMS - people are
welcome to edit the page and add additional items (probably the Itanium
people have a few ideas in the pipe?:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg00361.html:
> We also plan to fix swing modulo scheduling to make it work on ia64
> and improve it by propagating data dependency information to RTL. We
> plan to discuss this project on the GCC mailing list in a few weeks.)
Vladimir & Dorit
Re: Control Flow Graph
Thanks,
but i want to use the .cfg file to construct directly a tree_cfg in C
language using the TREE SSA libraries of gcc. The doc-page is the follow
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/pub/tree-ssa/doc/html/files.html. I'm
not understand how to use this libraries to contstruct a tree-cfg to
manipulate.
Can you help me?
Thanks to all,
lastnote
Diego Novillo ha scritto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 11/15/06 06:06:
Hi all,
i must use cfg library to build and manipulate a control flow graph.
I have read more but i have not found an answer to my question: It is
possible to build a cfg structure directly from a file .cfg ?? How i
can building a cfg from a file??
Thanks to all,
Ask for a dump using the -blocks switch and post-process the dump file
with the attached script.
$ gcc -fdump-tree-all-blocks file.c
$ dump2dot file.c.XXXt.yyy
It generates a graphviz file with the flow graph of the function. The
script is fairly simplistic and will not handle more than one function
too gracefully, but that should be easy to change.
#!/bin/sh
#
# (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation
# Contributed by Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
#
# This script is Free Software, and it can be copied, distributed and
# modified as defined in the GNU General Public License. A copy of
# its license can be downloaded from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
if [ "$1" = "" ] ; then
echo "usage: $0 file"
echo
echo "Generates a GraphViz .dot graph file from 'file'."
echo "It assumes that 'file' has been generated with -fdump-tree-...-blocks"
echo
exit 1
fi
file=$1
out=$file.dot
echo "digraph cfg {" > $out
echo " node [shape=box]" >>$out
echo ' size="11,8.5"'>>$out
echo>>$out
(grep -E '# BLOCK|# PRED:|# SUCC:' $file | \
sed -e 's:\[\([0-9\.%]*\)*\]::g;s:([a-z_,]*)::g' | \
awk '{ #print $0; \
if ($2 == "BLOCK")\
{ \
bb = $3;\
print "\t", bb, "[label=\"", bb, "\", style=filled,
color=gray]"; \
} \
else if ($2 == "PRED:") \
{ \
for (i = 3; i <= NF; i++)\
print "\t", $i, "->", bb, ";"; \
} \
}') >> $out
echo "}" >> $out
Re: Control Flow Graph
albino aiello wrote on 11/15/06 10:14: Thanks, but i want to use the .cfg file to construct directly a tree_cfg in C language using the TREE SSA libraries of gcc. There is no such thing as a tree ssa library. If you are adding a pass to GCC, then you already have the CFG at your disposal. In fact, you are pretty much forced to work over the CFG. If you want to use this functionality outside of GCC, I'm afraid you cannot do that (without a lot of work).
Re: [M32C-ELF] Correct way of setting reset and interrupt vectors
Florian Pose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) What is the correct way to set the reset vector? Wrong mailing list. This mailing list is for development of the gcc compiler itself. You could try the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list, but I think you'll have better luck if you can find some forum for M32C programming. Ian
regarding entry point & module name of gcc 3..3.3
hi , i need ahelp ; plz tell me how i can get entry point whom from i can change graph coloring register allocation technique to linear scan ; what r modules & will affect ; plz send me mail ; manish mohan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Type of GCC Maintainer
GCC has increased in size, scope, and complexity, but the number of maintainers has not scaled commensurately. While there is a need for more reviewers, there also is a concern of too many maintainers stepping on one another and GCC development becoming more chaotic. After a lot of brain-storming and discussion with current maintainers and after considering many options, the GCC Steering Committee has voted to create a new type of maintainer: non-algorithmic maintainer. A non-algorithmic change is one which maintains an overall algorithm and does not introduce new functionality, but may change implementation details. Non-Algorithmic maintainers can commit and review bug fix patches written by themselves or by other developers, such as patches appropriate for GCC Development Stage 3, and should help general maintainers with recommendations about other patches. In other words, general maintainers effectively are technical architects for their area of the compiler. The term "algorithmic change" is somewhat ambiguous and the SC has decided not to provide a formal definition that could overly-constrain maintainers. This is not a language standard inviting developers to parse words. Instead, any other maintainer with authority over the area unilaterally may revert a patch approved or committed by a non-algorithmic maintainer, if necessary. Hopefully the maintainers would resolve the concern through discussion without having to invoke this provision. Let the experiment begin ... Happy Hacking, David
Zdenek Dvorak and Daniel Berlin appointed loop optimizer maintainers
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed Zdenek Dvorak and Daniel Berlin as non-algorithmic maintainers of the RTL and Tree loop optimizer infrastructure in GCC. Please join me in congratulating Zdenek and Daniel on their new role. Zdenek and Daniel, please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS file. Happy hacking! David
GCC_4.2: libstdc++-v3/config/ missing files (linker-map.gnu)
Hello, When cross compiling GCC version 4.2 (Debian way). I'm missing, libstdc++-v3/config/linker-map.gnu Are those moved somewhere else? I can not find any changelog or something telling about it. There is a bug thread at Debian bug tracking system[1]. Should it be filed a bug against GCC-4.2 ? Regards, Hector Oron [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=393897
gpl version 3 and gcc
All, I'm curious what is to happen with gcc when the gpl version 3 is done. Will new versions of gcc be automatically changed to use the new license, or will gcc stay at 2, will there be discussion about any such change? My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that if gcc goes to version 3, linux distribution maintainers will not choose to go with the new version, or worse, some groups will choose to remain at gpl2 and others will go to version 3, causing a fork in the gcc code. Substitute 'gcc' for any other project, and there could be a schism between all of gnu which would hurt everybody involved with free software. So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to go with 3? Thanks much, Ed
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
> > All, > > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to > go with 3? We (developers/SC) don't have control over this, the FSF has the control. When the FSF says move over to GPLv3 we will, no questions. All GNU projects which are copyrighted by the FSF will be the same: glibc, bintuils, gdb, etc. -- Pinski
regenerating reliably GCC configure files
Dear all,
I am not sure to understand what is the *reliable* way to regenerate
GCC configure files from the real (human typed) master source files
(like Makefile.in, gcc/configure.ac, Makefile.tpl, etc...)
I made some suggestions on the Wiki
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AboutGCCConfiguration
Again, feel free to edit the above page (and/or incorporate parts of
it into the documentation).
And I am using (on Debian/Sid/AMD64, with additional autoconf-2.59
inside /usr/local) the following regen-basile-gcc script (explicitly
in the public domain, without warranties of any kind)
#! /bin/sh
set -x
GCCTOP=${1:-/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc/}
cd $GCCTOP || { echo failed to cd $GCCTOP ; exit 1 }
echo
pwd
rm -rf autom4te.cache */autom4te.cache
pwd
autogen Makefile.def
autoreconf2.13
echo
cd gcc/
pwd
autoreconf-2.59
echo done regen-basile-gcc
Actually, I have two wishes
First, to have the exact process of regenerating configure files
documented in the GCC internal documentation
Second, to have some script (perhaps in contrib/) within the source
tree which does that.
Maybe both are already there, my apologies if I didn't found them (but
I did seek them).
BTW, I cannot submit a patch for this because while it is trivial in
my view, it would exceed the 10 line limit, and my copyright
assignment is not signed yet (but it will be signed soon). Is it
permitted to submit trivial patches of a bit more than 10 lines while
the copyright assignment is pending?
With Sebastian Pop I am patching the configure machinerey to add
additional libraries usable by GCC, such as the Parma Polyhedra
Library. IF you are curious, this tentative patch (not yet working) is
available on http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ggcc-basile.tgz and its
md5 is http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ggcc-basile.md5 ; actually
these URL contains an automated backup of my work...
When I run my script, I'm getting
% regen-basile-gcc
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:3> GCCTOP=/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc/
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:4> cd /usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc/
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:5> pwd
/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:6> rm -rf autom4te.cache
gcc/autom4te.cache
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:9> pwd
/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc
/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:10: no matches found: */autom4te.cache
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:12> pwd
/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:13> autogen Makefile.def
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:14> autoreconf2.13
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:16> echo
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:17> cd gcc/
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:18> pwd
/usr/src/Lang/basile-ggcc/gcc
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:19> autoreconf-2.59
aclocal:configure.ac:1120: warning: macro `AM_LC_MESSAGES' not found in library
configure.ac:1120: error: possibly undefined macro: AM_LC_MESSAGES
If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow.
See the Autoconf documentation.
autoreconf-2.59: /usr/local/bin/autoconf-2.59 failed with exit status: 1
+/home/basile/scripts/regen-basile-gcc:21> echo done regen-basile-gcc
done regen-basile-gcc
I don't understand why and when do I get the warning about
AM_LC_MESSAGES
And I am getting the same error (with the same script) when running it
on a pristine gcc trunk SVN tree of svn info
Path: .
URL: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Repository Root: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
Repository UUID: 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4
Revision: 118865
Node Kind: directory
Schedule: normal
Last Changed Author: pbrook
Last Changed Rev: 118864
Last Changed Date: 2006-11-15 19:12:17 +0100 (Wed, 15 Nov 2006)
Could experts who are hacking the master files for configuration
please share their reconfiguration script or experience? This is
making me crazy! And if these people have write access to the GCC
trunk, I would be pleased to help them to document it, or adding such
a script... Alternatively I would be delighted if they could
contribute to the Wiki...
Regards.
NB: mail sent to both the gcc mailing list and the private globalgcc list
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faïencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
Re: regenerating reliably GCC configure files
> I am not sure to understand what is the *reliable* way to regenerate > GCC configure files from the real (human typed) master source files > (like Makefile.in, gcc/configure.ac, Makefile.tpl, etc...) > > I made some suggestions on the Wiki > > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AboutGCCConfiguration > > > Again, feel free to edit the above page (and/or incorporate parts of > it into the documentation). Hi, My initial reaction is "Why title the page \"About GCC Configuration\"" when the first line says it's about something else. I recommend a title like "... Configure auto-generation" or "... regeneration". You can still explain the distinction in the introduction, since people still often mistake the procedures. Some links to download the required versions of the autotools might save some time for people getting started quickly. This looks like a good start so far. Fang
Re: ICE while bootstrapping trunk on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00
Rainer Emrich wrote: On trunk Revision: 118816 [snip] -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../libdecnumber -DL__gcc_bcmp -c /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c -o libgcc/./__gcc_bcmp.o /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__gcc_bcmp': /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c:1970: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault I see the same here on a hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11. My last successful run was with 118728. I try now to pin down when it got introduced. Andreas
Re: Zdenek Dvorak and Daniel Berlin appointed loop optimizer maintainers
Hello, > I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has > appointed Zdenek Dvorak and Daniel Berlin as non-algorithmic maintainers > of the RTL and Tree loop optimizer infrastructure in GCC. thank you. What exactly does "non-algorithmic" mean in this context? Zdenek > Please join me in congratulating Zdenek and Daniel on their new > role. Zdenek and Daniel, please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS > file. > > Happy hacking! > David
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Ed S. Peschko wrote: My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that if gcc goes to version 3, linux distribution maintainers will not choose to go with the new version, or worse, some groups will choose to remain at gpl2 and others will go to version 3, causing a fork in the gcc code. This is mostly off-topic, as strange as that sounds, for this list. gnu.misc.discuss is the canonical place for discussions on licensing. When the FSF is done with v3, I'd expect that gcc will switch over to it. There should be enough distributors of gcc on the GPLv3 review teams to provide solid feedback to the FSF so that their needs can be met. I'd hope that in the end, there will be enough balance to allow distributors to continue distributing gcc under the v3 license. So, the short answer is wait and see. Once v3 is published, we should know within a couple of months after that, check back then.
Re: Zdenek Dvorak and Daniel Berlin appointed loop optimizer maintainers
> Zdenek Dvorak writes: Zdenek> thank you. What exactly does "non-algorithmic" mean in this context? Please see the immediately previous announcement to the GCC mailinglist of non-algorithmic maintainers. David
Re: vectorizer data dependency graph
On 11/15/06, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 11/15/06, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is a ddg in this patch if somebody wants the classic Allen&Kennedy > way to look at the dependences: > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/OptimizationCourse?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=loop-distribution-patch-against-gcc-4.1.0-release.patch > Any plans to merge this into the FSF trunk? Georges-Andre Silber wants to submit this patch in a better shape after some more cleanups. Another plan is to just commit this version of the patch in a branch, and let everybody improve the loop distribution pass, then submit it to trunk. Sebastian
Re: regenerating reliably GCC configure files
Le Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:00:21PM -0500, David Fang écrivait/wrote:
> > I am not sure to understand what is the *reliable* way to regenerate
> > GCC configure files from the real (human typed) master source files
> > (like Makefile.in, gcc/configure.ac, Makefile.tpl, etc...)
> >
> > I made some suggestions on the Wiki
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AboutGCCConfiguration
> >
> >
> > Again, feel free to edit the above page (and/or incorporate parts of
> > it into the documentation).
>
> Hi,
>
> My initial reaction is "Why title the page \"About GCC
> Configuration\"" when the first line says it's about something else. I
> recommend a title like "... Configure auto-generation" or "...
> regeneration". You can still explain the distinction in the introduction,
> since people still often mistake the procedures.
> Some links to download the required versions of the autotools
[...]
A big thanks to David Fang for his comment. I just updated the wiki.
But I still cannot figure out how to regenerate *reliably* (and in a
reproductible way) the various configure scripts in the source tree
from the master files.
the script in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-11/msg00587.html don't
work (macro `AM_LC_MESSAGES' not found)
The steps
autogen Makefile.def
autoconf2.13
cd gcc
autoheader-2.59
autoconf-2.59
seems to work now but I remember having gotten the imfamous macro
`AM_LC_MESSAGES' not found error
what is the exact role of the autom4te.cache/ directories (I thought
that these are cache -only to speedup things- directories which are
not in the distribution and can be removed)?
Are autoreconf scripts harmful or unneeded?
How do configuration experts regenerate the configure scripts? I wish
it could be completely documented, or be a script under contrib/
By experience, sometimes autoconf-2.xx has to be run twice. When?
It seems that it is not possible to have some compiler options (like
-f* to gcc) disabled by --disable-* or --without-* flags because the
common.opt file doesn't have any "conditionals"
Regards
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basilestarynkevitchnet mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faïencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***
Re: GCC_4.2: libstdc++-v3/config/ missing files (linker-map.gnu)
"Hector Oron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When cross compiling GCC version 4.2 (Debian way). I'm missing, > libstdc++-v3/config/linker-map.gnu > > Are those moved somewhere else? I can not find any changelog or > something telling about it. > > There is a bug thread at Debian bug tracking system[1]. > > Should it be filed a bug against GCC-4.2 ? In what sense is the file missing? That file did exist in 4.1, but after the 4.1 release it moved to libstd++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01377.html But all the references were updated, so why does it matter? Ian
Re: ICE while bootstrapping trunk on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00
| /raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.3.0/gcc/libgcc2.c:1970: | internal compiler error: Segmentation fault | Please submit a full bug report, | with preprocessed source if appropriate. | See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. I am seeing this too. I tracked it back to line 5613 of tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (rewrite_use_compare). There is a line: bound = cp->value; and cp is null. cp is set with a call to get_use_iv_cost and that routine does return NULL in some cases so I think we need to check for a NULL cp before dereferencing it. I changed if (bound) to if (cp && cp->value) and set bound inside the if but now I am dying when compiling decNumber.c so I don't have a bootstrap working yet. Steve Ellcey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > All, > > > > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, > > staying > > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some > > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to > > go with 3? > > We (developers/SC) don't have control over this, the FSF has the control. > When the FSF says move over to GPLv3 we will, no questions. > All GNU projects which are copyrighted by the FSF will be the same: glibc, > bintuils, gdb, etc. Ok, So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer document that developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property? If not, how would you force compliance with individual patches from various contributors who want to stay at version2? Or would you only accept patches from people who are happy with version3? Also, I'm assuming that licenses are not able to be grand-fathered to old versions, so I'm assuming gcc's pre-gpl3 will always remain at gpl2. Which means the big likelihood is that gcc/binutils/etc. will fork. I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your corporate funding. Does anyone from the FSF read this list, and if so, what do they think about this line of argument? Ed
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > All, > > > > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, staying > > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some > > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to > > go with 3? > > We (developers/SC) don't have control over this, the FSF has the control. > When the FSF says move over to GPLv3 we will, no questions. > All GNU projects which are copyrighted by the FSF will be the same: glibc, > bintuils, gdb, etc. Ok, So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer document that developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property? If not, how would you force compliance with individual patches from various contributors who want to stay at version2? Or would you only accept patches from people who are happy with version3? Also, I'm assuming that licenses are not able to be grand-fathered to old versions, so I'm assuming gccs pre-gpl3 will always remain at gpl2. Which means the big likelihood is that gcc/binutils/etc. will fork. I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your corporate support. Does anyone from the FSF read this list, and if so, what do they think about this line of argument? Ed
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
> So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer > document that developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property? Correct. > Also, I'm assuming that licenses are not able to be grand-fathered to old > versions, so I'm assuming gcc's pre-gpl3 will always remain at gpl2. Correct. > I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to > happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is > not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community > in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your > corporate funding. Does anyone from the FSF read this list, and if > so, what do they think about this line of argument? As has been said before, the proper list to discuss licensing politics is gnu.misc.discuss, not here. Neither GCC developers individually nor the GCC SC has any input whatsoever on how the FSF licenses its software.
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
> > I'm sorry, but IMO this GPL change seems just a disaster waiting to > > happen. Unless GPL3 is non-controversial (which it sounds like it is > > not) it'll tear both your development team and your user community > > in half, as well as probably get rid of a large part of your > > corporate funding. Does anyone from the FSF read this list, and if > > so, what do they think about this line of argument? > > As has been said before, the proper list to discuss licensing politics > is gnu.misc.discuss, not here. Neither GCC developers individually nor the > GCC SC has any input whatsoever on how the FSF licenses its software. ok - noted. But IMO that leaves no real forum at all. Wandering over to gnu.misc.discuss I get such snippets as: > Here's something I wrote about GPLv3 and Devices Rigged to Malfunction: > http://kerneltrap.org/node/7238 and in response: > Hey FSFE retard, it's malfunction in your brain, not Tivo-like devices. Wandering through a couple more posts shows pretty much the same level of maturity, and wandering into that cesspool seems to solve nothing at all. And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split to the group that could prevent it. After all - lots of you are putting a great effort into GNU software basically gratis... Ed
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
> And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that the > possibility of your project being divided in two would be of great concern > to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to convey any sort > of apprehension that you might have about such a split to the group that > could prevent it. After all - lots of you are putting a great effort into > GNU software basically gratis... Lots of very intelligent people have been working a very long time on gplv3. A number of people with an interest in GCC have seen drafts of it many months ago (including me) and have made comments on particular pieces of language in that draft (again, including me). You can be assured that none of these people would want to have the updated GPL cause a fork in any development project. But the purpose of this list is to have *technical* discussions about GCC. The issue of what license the FSF will choose to put GCC under is not a *technical* issue and hence is off-topic for this list. The formal description of the list is "for general development discussions about GCC. Anything relevant to the development or testing of GCC and not covered by other mailing lists is suitable for discussion here." Discussion of the GPL belong in gnu.misc.discuss and hence is covered by another mailing list and off-topic for this list.
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 01:55:05PM -0800, Ed S. Peschko wrote: > On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:14:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > All, > > > > > > So, again, Is gcc planning on automatically moving to gpl version 3, > > > staying > > > at gpl version 2, or having a protracted discussion? What happens if some > > > developers decide they want to stay at 2 and others decide they want to > > > go with 3? > > > > We (developers/SC) don't have control over this, the FSF has the control. > > When the FSF says move over to GPLv3 we will, no questions. > > All GNU projects which are copyrighted by the FSF will be the same: glibc, > > bintuils, gdb, etc. > > So I gather that the FSF has some sort of property-rights transfer document > that > developers sign in order to make their patches FSF property? If not, how > would > you force compliance with individual patches from various contributors who > want > to stay at version2? Or would you only accept patches from people who are > happy > with version3? GCC developers assign copyright to the Free Software Foundation, which is the copyright holder for all GNU projects; see http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html. This discussion is off-topic for this mailing list. Janis
Re: GCC_4.2: libstdc++-v3/config/ missing files (linker-map.gnu)
But all the references were updated, so why does it matter? In Debian there is a patch for cross compilation that uses it. Thanks
Re: Configuration question
> > Shouldn't the > > libstdc++ configure script use the new GCC when checking things with > > AC_TRY_COMPILE. > > Yes. > > -benjamin It looks like this has something to do with using autoconf 2.59 at the top-level of GCC. I am experimenting with updating the top-level GCC to 2.59 now that all of the GCC and src sub-trees have been updated to 2.59. When I tried this on Linux I had no problems but on HP-UX (with multilibs) it is not working correctly and the failure I get is that AC_TRY_COMPILE is not using the right GCC when run. When I undid my top-level change (went back to autoconf 2.14) the libstdc++ configure worked correctly and the right GCC was used by AC_TRY_COMPILE. Most perplexing. Steve Ellcey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
"Ed S. Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And in any case, why should it be off-topic? Regardless of how much it affects, us, it's off-topic *by definition* in *this forum*. This isn't the right place to discuss such topics because that's the way we want it to be.
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
"Ed S. Peschko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that > the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of > great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to > convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split > to the group that could prevent it. After all - lots of you are putting > a great effort into GNU software basically gratis... (I'll post on this once, even though it is off-topic. I apologize if this seems excessively inappropriate.) None of us think that our project is going to be divided in two. 1) The license of gcc does not carry over to the license of code compiled with gcc. gcc has been used for many years to compile proprietary code which runs on proprietary systems. It follows that there is absolutely nothing wrong with using a GPLv3 gcc to compile GPLv2 code on GPLv2 systems. 2) Every person who has contributed a patch of any significance at all to gcc has signed a paper granting the FSF the rights to the code, including the right to release the code under any free software license. It follows that people who are vitally concerned about the possibility of a license change to gcc within the bounds of free software are not, in general, contributors to gcc. I appreciate your need to raise the alarm about GPLv3. But I don't think that gcc is a useful area. gcc is and always been owned by the Free Software Foundation. That fact comes with certain implications, including the prospect of future changes to the GPL (gcc in fact already went through the GPLv1 to GPLv2 change, not that that was a big deal). Contributors to gcc already faced these issues long ago. Ian
Re: regenerating reliably GCC configure files
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: But I still cannot figure out how to regenerate *reliably* My take, aside from the top level, you enable maintainer mode and type make with 2.59 in your path. If it fails to work, file a bug report. For the top level, you should have 2.13 in your path and make. If these fail to work reliably, then I suspect it is a bug and you can then build reliably after that bug is fixed.
hey, sup?
hey, got a new emailjust dropping by to say hi. I got some videos online at http://one.revver.com/find/video/AltimitHacker . u should check them out, they're pretty funny.
odd severities in bugzilla
I was doing some research to answer some questions RMS had about bug tracking, and I see some odd things: we have two bugs (24998 and 25438) with Severity="blocker" and Priority="P5". This seems incoherent, as do other uses of Severity="blocker". I had thought that this designation was reserved for bugs that prevent a release (meaning that the RM, or in rare cases the SC, would mark a bug that way). But I found a log entry from Wolfgang saying * Replace use of outdated severity "blocker" with "critical". So, are we using "P1" instead to mark release-blocking bugs? Should we fix the severities of existing bugs?
Re: [M32C-ELF] Correct way of setting reset and interrupt vectors
Florian Pose wrote: Hi all, I recently started a microcontroller project based on the Renesas M16C family. I successfully built the GNU toolchain (binutils-2.17, gcc-4.1.1, newlib from CVS) and are now able to build executables for the M32C-ELF target. Great! Now, two questions come up: 1) What is the correct way to set the reset vector? Use a linker script to load a jump to the start routine in the reset vector. -- Michael Eager[EMAIL PROTECTED] 1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
Ed S. Peschko wrote: And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split to the group that could prevent it. After all - lots of you are putting a great effort into GNU software basically gratis... I and many other GCC developers read a number of lists; this is not the only place we exist. Thus, the fact that this is something that we might wish to discuss is not congruent with it being something that we want to discuss _here_. What you are describing are reasons why we might want to discuss this in some forum elsewhere. They are not reasons why it should be considered on-topic in this particular list. - Brooks
Re: libffi on Macintel?
Mike, The problem is that the Geoff rejected the configure.in patch that removes libgcj from noconfigdirs... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-09/msg00642.html ...as being too invasive for gcc 4.2. If you manually apply that, it should build java fine with --disable-multilib on Intel Darwin. Why don't you try to get that patch into gcc trunk now that gcc 4.2 has branched? Jack On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 02:26:11PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Nov 12, 2006,@3:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > >Can anyone confirm that the libffi shared libraries are properly > >built in gcc 4.2 branch (or trunk) > > No, they aren't built: > > The following languages will be built: c,c++,java > *** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories: > target-libmudflap target-libffi target-zlib target-libjava > target-libada gnattools target-libgfortran target-libobjc target-boehm- > gc > (Any other directories should still work fine.) > > :-( > > >This is rather disturbing since I assumed that Sandro's patches were > >all properly checked into gcc trunk before gcc 4.2 branched. > > :-( > > >no one seems to be submitting testresults for i386-apple-darwin8 > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00621.html
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:35:39PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote: > Ed S. Peschko wrote: > >And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that > >the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of > >great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to > >convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split > >to the group that could prevent it. After all - lots of you are putting > >a great effort into GNU software basically gratis... > > I and many other GCC developers read a number of lists; this is not the > only place we exist. Thus, the fact that this is something that we > might wish to discuss is not congruent with it being something that we > want to discuss _here_. > > What you are describing are reasons why we might want to discuss this in > some forum elsewhere. They are not reasons why it should be considered > on-topic in this particular list. > > - Brooks > Fine.. as I said, what's a reasonable forum to discuss this on? gnu.misc.discuss just doesn't cut it.. gnu.licensing.discuss might be better if it existed.. linux-kernel discusses it at length - where I guess it is not considered off-topic - but that doesn't reach either the FSF, or developers, or stallman as far as I know. It doesn't seem that there *is* a decent forum for discussing it (or so google says). Let me know if you know otherwise. Ed
Re: gpl version 3 and gcc
Fine.. as I said, what's a reasonable forum to discuss this on? gnu.misc.discuss just doesn't cut it.. gnu-misc-discuss@ is the proper place, just ignore Terekhov.
