Re: nios2 -mcustom-round vs. libatomic
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 07:39 Sebastian Huber, < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 14/01/2021 15:16, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I try to add a nios2 multilib to support the "Nios II Floating Point > > Hardware 2 Component": > > > > > https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/programmable/us/en/pdfs/literature/ug/ug_nios2_custom_instruction.pdf > > > > > > If I add all custom instructions supported by the component, then I > > get an error in libatomic since -Werror is used: > > > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-fmins' has no effect unless > > '-ffinite-math-only' is specified [-Werror] > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-fmaxs' has no effect unless > > '-ffinite-math-only' is specified [-Werror] > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-round' has no effect unless > > '-fno-math-errno' is specified [-Werror] > > > > I am not sure how to fix this. > Is a compiler warning the right diagnostic for an inconsistent use of > compiler options? This warning is not related to code processed by GCC. > But the options are part of the input provided by the user. I think a warning is appropriate (and I'm not sure what other sensible options there are anyway).
Re: nios2 -mcustom-round vs. libatomic
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 4:12 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 07:39 Sebastian Huber, < > sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > On 14/01/2021 15:16, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I try to add a nios2 multilib to support the "Nios II Floating Point > > > Hardware 2 Component": > > > > > > > > > https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/programmable/us/en/pdfs/literature/ug/ug_nios2_custom_instruction.pdf > > > > > > > > > If I add all custom instructions supported by the component, then I > > > get an error in libatomic since -Werror is used: > > > > > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-fmins' has no effect unless > > > '-ffinite-math-only' is specified [-Werror] > > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-fmaxs' has no effect unless > > > '-ffinite-math-only' is specified [-Werror] > > > cc1: error: switch '-mcustom-round' has no effect unless > > > '-fno-math-errno' is specified [-Werror] > > > > > > I am not sure how to fix this. > > Is a compiler warning the right diagnostic for an inconsistent use of > > compiler options? This warning is not related to code processed by GCC. > > > > But the options are part of the input provided by the user. I think a > warning is appropriate (and I'm not sure what other sensible options there > are anyway). > I've seen similar warnings on other architectures and sometimes the linker will give you an error for incompatible code. But I don't know if this incompatibility is something the linker will care about. The message is just saying it is being ignored like C++ options used when compiling C or vice-versa. Have you mapped these odd combinations to multilibs? Personally, I'd be happy for this to be an error and not a warning if they can't be in effect at the same time. The user needs to go back and think more about what they are doing. But it isn't a huge deal. In this case, I think it means your "enable all" may actually be two near complete subsets. One which is all with the no effect options dropped and another which includes the no effect options and drops the conflicting ones. But I have no idea what actually makes sense for someone to configure and deploy on this CPU. I'm just looking at the options like a truth table. --joel --joel
Erroneous results from gfortran
Hello, I’ve used gfortran to compile a program on Mac Big Sur using gcc-10.2 and on Windows 10 using g77. I’ve used -o0 for both cases. The results for identical input values are vastly different between the two executables and wrong from gfortran. I’m not sure if there’s a big in gfortran or something else is causing this issue. I appreciate if you look into this issue. Thanks, .___ Bahram M. Shahrooz, Ph.D., P.E., FACI, FASCE, FSEI Professor of Structural Engineering University of Cincinnati College of Engineering and Applied Science Department of CAECM 765 Baldwin Hall Cincinnati, OH 45221-0071 Phone: (513) 556-3677 Fax: (513) 556-2599
Re: Erroneous results from gfortran
Hello Professor, Shahrooz, Bahram (shahrobm) via Gcc wrote: I’ve used gfortran to compile a program on Mac Big Sur using gcc-10.2 and on Windows 10 using g77. I’ve used -o0 for both cases. The results for identical input values are vastly different between the two executables and wrong from gfortran. I’m not sure if there’s a big in gfortran or something else is causing this issue. It is impossible to tell from your description. So far, there is no released version of gfortran that supports the recently released macOS 11 (big sur) update, although Intel versions of the platform would be expected to be supported from 10.3 onwards. I appreciate if you look into this issue. In order for us to look into the issue we would need to be able to reproduce the problem - so some more information is needed - please see: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ for a description of how to report a bug using https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ so that we can try to fix examine and fix it. thanks. Iain
gcc-9-20210115 is now available
Snapshot gcc-9-20210115 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20210115/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch releases/gcc-9 revision 669f3c7bc022388ada90b8560f64486cf5a94394 You'll find: gcc-9-20210115.tar.xzComplete GCC SHA256=7056716b988ccc92785e4cd0f4d3e92bcfbeb4ae3ce4bff64b66deb1f7e84a6d SHA1=42e0bf4f9f5833d88f56d7c4d22a41b8f3f551cd Diffs from 9-20210108 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-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.
