Hmmm, I think we've seen this problem before (lto build):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-12/msg1.html FAILED: Bootstrap (build config: lto; languages: fortran; trunk revision 205557) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In function 'release', inlined from 'release' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/vec.h:1428:3, inlined from '__base_dtor ' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/vec.h:1195:0, inlined from 'compute_antic_aux' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:2212:0, inlined from 'compute_antic' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:2493:0, inlined from 'do_pre' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:4738:23, inlined from 'execute' at /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-pre.c:4818:0: /home/toon/compilers/gcc/gcc/vec.h:312:3: error: attempt to free a non-heap object 'worklist' [-Werror=free-nonheap-object] ::free (v); ^ lto1: all warnings being treated as errors make[4]: *** [/dev/shm/wd26755/cczzGuTZ.ltrans13.ltrans.o] Error 1 make[4]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs lto-wrapper: make returned 2 exit status /usr/bin/ld: lto-wrapper failed collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status -- Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands At home: http://moene.org/~toon/; weather: http://moene.org/~hirlam/ Progress of GNU Fortran: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortran#news
wide-int compile time: state of play
FWIW, here are some numbers comparing the times various --enable-checking=release versions of cc1plus take to compile a set of .ii inputs at -O2. The versions are: (a) wide-int r205263, where the last merge was made (b) current wide-int with the patches I've posted applied on top (c) trunk r205261, the last wide-int merge point The .ii files were from the (c) version of fold-const.c, cp/parser.c and insn-recog.c. The times are means from 7 runs with the standard deviation in brackets. (The results seem too noisy to just quote the minimum.) fold-const.c cp/parser.cinsn-recog.c (a) 5.9204 (0.04578) 4.8329 (0.05010) 28.0811 (0.29829) (b) 5.8783 (0.02788) 4.7865 (0.02841) 25.7909 (0.31766) (c) 5.8507 (0.03329) 4.7756 (0.03786) 25.8563 (0.30302) So (b) seems measurably faster than (a), but the differences between (b) and (c) are within 0.5% at face value and might just be noise. I can do another run once Kenny's finished the patches to shrink the size of widest_int. Thanks, Richard
gcc-4.9-20131201 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20131201 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20131201/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 205574 You'll find: gcc-4.9-20131201.tar.bz2 Complete GCC MD5=0a42b94f993043558c54ed0f06d27abd SHA1=fc0a2faf24338cc12836f0c34a3b69eac6c41dc5 Diffs from 4.9-20131124 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.9 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.
Re: Broken links to libstdc++ docs
Hi Jonathan, On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Once again the links from http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ to the > libstdc++ docs don't work: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.4/libstdc++/manual/ > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.3/libstdc++/manual/ this works for me now and I am not sure what may have been going on back then -- something tells me I actually checked, and could not find any issue. Am I missing something, perhaps? Gerald
