Re: Un-deprecating CRX: Request to review and commit
Hello All, Steering Committee, Can someone please review the patch and suggest if this OK for 4.3 branch? Regards, Pompa Pompapathi V Gadad wrote: Hello All, Refer: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00306.html I had submitted a patch to undeprecate CRX port in 4.3 branch. The port itself has not changed. I have also submitted the tests results. So far I have not recevied any comments for GCC community. Can someone please review the patch and suggest if this is OK for 4.3 branch? I will submit another patch for TRUNK as well. Thanks, Pompa
[tuples] Tuples branch frozen
Folks, I need to freeze the branch for a few hours. The overnight tester returned many new failures that I need to analyze. Please refrain from checking in anything until I unfreeze the branch. Diego.
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 08:48:12AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Folks, I need to freeze the branch for a few hours. The overnight
> tester returned many new failures that I need to analyze. Please
> refrain from checking in anything until I unfreeze the branch.
Grrr. I hope it wasn't me. I didn't enable any new code paths that
weren't already gcc_unreachable(). Besides, my tests returned a couple
hundred less failures. If for some reason it was me, we can disable
execute_{expand,lower}_omp again.
Aldy
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
> Grrr. I hope it wasn't me. I didn't enable any new code paths that
> weren't already gcc_unreachable(). Besides, my tests returned a couple
> hundred less failures. If for some reason it was me, we can disable
> execute_{expand,lower}_omp again.
Looks like 133658 broke the build:
../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used
uninitialized in this function
../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warning: 'v_back' is used
uninitialized in this function
> Aldy
>
Cheers,
--
Rafael Avila de Espindola
Google Ireland Ltd.
Gordon House
Barrow Street
Dublin 4
Ireland
Registered in Dublin, Ireland
Registration Number: 368047
Subject gcc testsuite testcase gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c
Hello,
This testcase seems to be broken, because it will fail everytime for the
static variable x. gcc detects, that this static variable has no reference
and will produce a warning.
Is this done by intention, or is it a failure in testcase to set variable
'static'?
Cheers,
i.A. Kai Tietz
| (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny
| (='.'=) into your signature to help him gain
| (")_(") world domination.
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used > uninitialized in this function > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warning: 'v_back' is used > uninitialized in this function Yes. That was probably causing all the runtime failures. I will unfreeze the branch after all the tests have finished. I want to make sure there are no new regressions. Diego.
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used > > uninitialized in this function > > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warning: 'v_back' is used > > uninitialized in this function > > Yes. That was probably causing all the runtime failures. > > I will unfreeze the branch after all the tests have finished. I want > to make sure there are no new regressions. Branch is open again. That was the only fix needed. Diego.
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-( gcc -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -Werror -Wno-return-type -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc/gcc -I../../gcc/gcc/. -I../../gcc/gcc/../include -I../../gcc/gcc/../libcpp/include -I/home/dougkwan/gcc-lib/install/include -I../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber -I../../gcc/gcc/../libdecnumber/bid -I../libdecnumber../../gcc/gcc/omp-low.c -o omp-low.o cc1: warnings being treated as errors ../../gcc/gcc/omp-low.c: In function 'expand_omp': ../../gcc/gcc/omp-low.c:3518: warning: 'vnext' may be used uninitialized in this function make[1]: *** [omp-low.o] Error 1 -Doug 2008/3/28 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:35, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:32, Rafael Espindola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3341: warning: 'v_main' is used > > > uninitialized in this function > > > ../../tuples2/gcc/omp-low.c:3342: warning: 'v_back' is used > > > uninitialized in this function > > > > Yes. That was probably causing all the runtime failures. > > > > I will unfreeze the branch after all the tests have finished. I want > > to make sure there are no new regressions. > > Branch is open again. That was the only fix needed. > > > Diego. >
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 13:30, Doug Kwan (關振紱) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-( Yeah, you're probably using a different host GCC than I am. Unfortunately, we'll have to live with this until bootstrap starts working. Adding an initializer to vnext will fix this. Diego.
Re: [tuples] Tuples branch frozen
Done. Fix commited to 133690. I am using the gcc 4.0.3 configure for i486-linux-gnu. -Doug 2008/3/28 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 13:30, Doug Kwan (關振德) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I got a new breakage after updating to rev 133687 5 minutes ago. :-( > > Yeah, you're probably using a different host GCC than I am. > Unfortunately, we'll have to live with this until bootstrap starts > working. Adding an initializer to vnext will fix this. > > Diego. >
Combined gcc + binutils source tree doesn't bootstrap
Hi, I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went to infinit loop when as or ld from stage 2 was used. The problem is ld-new tries to use itself to relink itself when it is invoked first time. How should gcc and libtool handle it properly? I think collect-ld should be modified. H.J.
Re: Combined gcc + binutils source tree doesn't bootstrap
Hello H.J., * H.J. Lu wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:14PM CET: > > I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined > gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on > Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went > to infinit loop when as or ld from stage 2 was used. The problem is > ld-new tries to use itself to relink itself when it is invoked > first time. Do you know when this behavior was introduced? I haven't done combined builds for several months. Thanks, Ralf
Re: Combined gcc + binutils source tree doesn't bootstrap
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello H.J., > > * H.J. Lu wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:14PM CET: > > > > > I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined > > gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on > > Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went > > to infinit loop when as or ld from stage 2 was used. The problem is > > ld-new tries to use itself to relink itself when it is invoked > > first time. > > Do you know when this behavior was introduced? I haven't done combined > builds for several months. > I have no idea. It is my first time to bootstrap the combined tree. I only used combined tree to build cross compiler before. H.J.
Re: please add DFP to gcc-4.3/changes.html
Still waiting on this... -benjamin
Re: [Ada] no run-time compilation (was: Clean up No_Run_Time tests in exp_ch4.adb)
On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 12:45 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 08:56 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote: > > > Is there a replacement for it? > > > > You can configure manually a self made run-time by setting flags > > (e.g. Configurable_Run_Time and Suppress_Standard_Library) in system.ads > > Thanks! Is there a list of the minimal set of "run-time" files > one has to keep around when building such a run-time (apart > from system.ads)? Answering my own question after a few experimentation, assuming an Ada compiler in PATH (tested with 4.3.0 on x86_64-linux): $ mkdir build $ cd build # copy gcc/src/ada/system.ads and s-maccod.ads locally, chmod 644 # edit system.ads $ diff -U 0 system.ads_orig system.ads --- system.ads_orig 2008-03-28 21:23:35.0 +0100 +++ system.ads 2008-03-28 21:23:27.0 +0100 @@ -131 +131 @@ - Configurable_Run_Time : constant Boolean := False; + Configurable_Run_Time : constant Boolean := True; @@ -150 +150 @@ - Suppress_Standard_Library : constant Boolean := False; + Suppress_Standard_Library : constant Boolean := True; $ cat > a.ads procedure A; pragma Export (C, A, "_start"); $ cat > a.adb with System.Machine_Code; use System.Machine_Code; procedure A is NL : constant String := ASCII.LF & ASCII.HT; begin Asm (Template => "movl $1,%%eax" & NL & "movl $42,%%ebx" & NL & "int $0x80", Outputs => No_Output_Operands, Inputs => No_Input_Operands, Clobber => "", Volatile => True); end A; $ cat > gnat.adc pragma Restrictions (No_Elaboration_Code, No_Exception_Handlers); $ gnatmake -f -a -c -nostdinc -nostdlib -g -Os a $ gcc -g -nodefaultlibs -nostdlib -nostartfiles -o a a.o $ objdump -S a $ ./a $ echo $? Laurent
gcc-4.4-20080328 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080328 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080328/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 133700 You'll find: gcc-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 Complete GCC (includes all of below) gcc-core-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 C front end and core compiler gcc-ada-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 Ada front end and runtime gcc-fortran-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 Fortran front end and runtime gcc-g++-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 C++ front end and runtime gcc-java-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 Java front end and runtime gcc-objc-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2 Objective-C front end and runtime gcc-testsuite-4.4-20080328.tar.bz2The GCC testsuite Diffs from 4.4-20080321 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.4 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86. I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options) for Solaris, how similar would those executables be? I understand that the code running in shared libraries and system calls will be different, but it seems that the rest (user-level) code should be the same, since it is generated by essentially the same compiler. What do you think? -- Sasha
Re: gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
On Saturday 29 March 2008 00:56, Alexandra (Sasha) Fedorova wrote: > I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86. > I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an > executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options) for > Solaris, how similar would those executables be? I understand that the > code running in shared libraries and system calls will be different, but > it seems that the rest (user-level) code should be the same, since it is > generated by essentially the same compiler. What do you think? Code will be similar, but it will not be identical. Even small changes in header files make gcc generate different assembly. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29950 -- vda
Re: gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 04:56:52PM -0700, Alexandra (Sasha) Fedorova wrote: > I was wondering anyone knows any details of the gcc port for Solaris/x86. > I am wondering, if I have an executable compiled with gcc for Linux and an > executable compiled with the same gcc (same version, same options) for > Solaris, how similar would those executables be? I understand that the > code running in shared libraries and system calls will be different, but > it seems that the rest (user-level) code should be the same, since it is > generated by essentially the same compiler. What do you think? It's the same compiler, other than a very tiny amount of OS-specific code. The "config" subdirectory isolates OS-specific code; if you want details, you could check out the files in that directory beginning with "sol2". (If you aren't prepared to dive into the source you're probably on the wrong list and might find gcc-help more appropriate, this is the development list for the compiler itself). It seems that the biggest differences are: * wchar_t and wint_t are different; * support for either the Sun or GNU linkers; * support for Solaris pragmas.
Re: gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Denys Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29950 And I can tell you now that bug is on purpose and really not a bug. We base stuff on the decl uid and not memory address so we try for the same code on different machines with the same preprocessed source. Anything else is hard to get a handle on really. -- Pinski
Re: gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
On Saturday 29 March 2008 01:46, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Denys Vlasenko > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29950 > > And I can tell you now that bug is on purpose and really not a bug. > We base stuff on the decl uid and not memory address so we try for the > same code on different machines with the same preprocessed source. > Anything else is hard to get a handle on really. Andrew, I am not trying to "push" this bugzilla entry, and also do not consider it a bug (even though I find behavior described there to be undesirable). In this case I used it as an example why expecting gcc (and probably any other compiler) to generate ideantical assembly from same source on different OS is unrealistic. Sorry if that was sounding offensive. -- vda
Re: gcc for Linux/x86 vs. Solaris/x86
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Denys Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In this case I used it as an example why expecting gcc > (and probably any other compiler) to generate > ideantical assembly from same source on different OS > is unrealistic. You can generate identical assembly from the same source on different OS as if you are using the same source, the preprocessed source will be same :). That is what we always mean by the same source really, we are talking about post preprocessed. Of course Fortran and Ada and Java don't have header issues :). -- Pinski
E-gold owner Douglas Jackson has been killed
E-gold founder, Douglas Jackson, 51, of Sheridan, Mont., was 4 times shot and killed Friday night on the Seventh Street ramp at East Seventh Avenue by off-duty County Deputy Daniel Montana Jr., police said. A spokesman for the Jackson's family told Fox 31 that the autopsy details show the shots came from 3 to 7 feet away and were fired at a level angle, not from someone lying on the ground. The investigation is ongoing, said DA spokeswoman Pam Russell. More details at tellhyip.com (c) hyipnews 2008
GSOC Student application
Hello, here's my application. Please, leave your comments as I still have two days to fix it if something is wrong :) Project I want to make some improvements in the Lexer/cpplib area: 1) Change the way of file handling -- Mmap file into memory if possible instead of allocating a buffer (if no character conversation is needed) -- Find the boundaries of line which for conversation is needed instead of converting the whole buffer. 2) Replace all malloc/free functions with XNEW/XDELETE (XNEWVEC, XDELETEVEC) macro. 3) Some small miscellaneous changes -- Improve the developer's documentation and comments -- Add a ru.po file for the libcpp Why is it useful for GCC? (corresponding to the project items) 1) The compile time and, probably, memory usage will be reduced. 2) Hard to say anything here. I have no idea why malloc/free functions are still used in the code since XNEW/XDELETE are supposed to be there. (Or may be I'm wrong? I've asked here once about this and it seems that I'm right.) 3) A good documentation is important for understanding the source code. The long sequence of mails in this list called "How to understand the gcc source code" is demonstrative. Why should I do this? 1. My knowledge in C programming language is very good. 2. I have some expirience in tokenization. 3. I want to join the GCC development process independently of GSOC, I will continue my work and supply my code after the end of the summer of code. 4. I have some expirience writing with the C++ language. May be it's not enough to develop big projects with it but it's definite enough to lex it :) 5. Finally I have a "Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools" book written by Alfred V. Aho, Ravi Sethi, and Jeffrey D. Ullman. I'm joking of course :) Biography I'm 18 years old student learning in Novosibirsk State University, Russia. I've been working with linux for 4 years, I enjoy writing C code and I always wanted to join some really great project like GCC. PS Where am I supposed to send this mail? I've seen no special address for GSOC applications so I sent it here. But I've seen no other applications in this list so I'm confused :)
Implementing a restrictive addressing mode for a gcc port
Hello all, For a port that i am working on has this particular addressing mode load Rd, Ra[offset] store Rs, Ra[offset] For the above two instructions base register Ra should be an even register. This i have implemented using the macros REGNO_OK_FOR_BASE_P and BASE_REG_CLASS by creating a class with only even registers. For the source or the destination register Rd/Ra, the restriction is that it should be one more than the base register . So the following instructions are valid: load R5, R4[4] store R11, R10[2] while the following ones are wrong: load R8, R6[4] store R3, R8[2] I am not sure how to implement this in the back-end. Can anyone give me any ideas? Regards, Shafi
