Re: GCC 3.3.6 has been released

R Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gerald Pfeifer wrote: | > On Fri, 27 May 2005, R Hill wrote: | > | >>a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations. | > Thanks, I just installed your patch. | > Gerald | | Just curious, are you guys interested in these types of brain dead |

Re: A newbie question: Maping pseudos to declaration.

One more thing I forgot to mention is that, I am working on a rather old version of gcc - 2.95.2 for some reasons. Krishna. On Sat, 28 May 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: #N V Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: # #> I am trying to do some modifications to the register allocator and for the #> arc

Re: GCC 3.3.6 has been released

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Fri, 27 May 2005, R Hill wrote: a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations. Thanks, I just installed your patch. Gerald Just curious, are you guys interested in these types of brain dead janitorial patches? I've noticed a few other small o

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

Joe Buck wrote: It also helps assure that the bug filer is a real person. If Bugzilla provided an anonymous way to file Bugzilla reports, we'd probably have spammers filling the bug database with ads for penis enlargement. RESOLVED: WORKSFORME --de.

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

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 04:37:18PM +1200, Ross Smith wrote: > Whenever I see something like "we need a valid email address" on a > corporate web site, I always take it for granted that it's because they > want to spam me. In this case, the GCC developers really do intend to use your email addres

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

On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from > that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of > filling an invalid report or a duplicate. I strongly suspect you're mistaken about the reason. > Is perhaps s

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that part > of the problem is that the documentation for > -funsafe-math-optimizations is so vague as to have no discernable > meaning. > > For example, does the wording of the documentation co

Re: A newbie question: Maping pseudos to declaration.

N V Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am trying to do some modifications to the register allocator and for the > architecture I am dealing with, I want to handle different type of pseudos > differently. All local scalars fall under one group, local struct/union > variables under one group an

Re: More front end type mismatch problems

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 12:09:51PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote: > - Yes thanks; but my point was that the result of comparison should remain > '_Bool' not 'int', and be properly promoted to likely 'char' not 'int'. As > for VRP to be most useful it needs to know the minimal precision required. >

Re: tree ssa and type issues

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 18:55 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: | > Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > > Hi again, | > > | > > I just hit this one from tree-ssa-into.c:rewrite_into_ssa() | > > | > > /* Initialize dominance frontier. */ | >

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

William Beebe wrote: > For example, whenever I feel the temperature rising a bit > too high, I just wonder over to the lkml and lurk awhile until I > realize once more what wonderfully sainted individuals the gcc > developers are. With the departure of Larry McVoy and BitKeeper, LKML is going to b

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Barada) wrote on 21.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Its a 266Mhz ColdFire v4e machine, about 263 BogoMips, 1/20 the > >> BogoMips of my workstation, and with an NFS rootfs, it gets network > > > >BogoMips are called BogoMips because they are not comparable among > >dif

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Henderson) wrote on 26.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > static const double range = PI; // * 2.0; > > static const double incr = PI / 100.0; > > The trig insns fail with large numbers; an arg

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 26.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Koning wrote: > > Scott> Yes, but within the defined mathematical ranges for sine and > > Scott> cosine -- [0, 2 * PI) -- the processor intrinsics are quite > > Scott> accurate. > I *said* that such stateme

A newbie question: Maping pseudos to declaration.

Hello All, I am trying to do some modifications to the register allocator and for the architecture I am dealing with, I want to handle different type of pseudos differently. All local scalars fall under one group, local struct/union variables under one group and all globals under one group. Given a

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

On 2005-05-28 17:17:32 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there is a problem with > GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I think that at least developers > could be informed about it via th

C++ PATCH: PR 2922

Hello, This amusingly small patch fixes PR 2922 (two-stage lookup for unqualified function calls with type-dependent arguments). We need only keep the set of functions we found in the first stage, and it will be augmented by those functions found using argument-dependent lookup at the second st

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

On 5/28/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brainstorming there may be, but certain folk in the GCC community simply > like being annoying, perhaps to feed their own sense of self-importance. > It is quite possible to disagree with someone without be disagreeable, > as exemplified b

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

On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 13:09 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Uros Bizjak wrote: > > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. > > In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > impersonal and unrespons

gcc-4.1-20050528 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050528 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050528/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 CVS branch with the following options: -D2005-05-28 17:43 UTC You'll

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

Uros Bizjak wrote: > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels impersonal and unresponsive. The form is not very user-friendly (as in friendly to users of GCC,

Re: Need GCC 3.3.6 PGP Signing Public Key

Thank you all. I was worrying that nobody would ever notice or be interested in this issue. I'd downloaded and checked the key and it matches. Thank you. ^_*' I would like to join you in Ottawa if possible, but I can't afford it. ^^; For people like me that have difficulty joining your

Re: More front end type mismatch problems

> From: Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote: >> Especially for the purpose of VRP, why wouldn't it be most ideally >> appropriate to define the result of a comparison to be a _Bool, as it's >> constrained to the range of 0:1; and by "usua

Re: Need GCC 3.3.6 PGP Signing Public Key

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >| Gaby added his key to the website now, but I agree that we should make >| sure the keys are sufficiently well signed by other members of the free >| software (or open source) community. > I'm a bit surprised because I uploaded my new key last december

Re: Need GCC 3.3.6 PGP Signing Public Key

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Sat, 28 May 2005, imacat wrote: | > This is imacat from Taiwan. I was downloading GCC 3.3.6. I saw it | > was signed by PGP key 902C9419, and it displayed its owner as Gabriel | > Dos Reis. But I can't find any other public source that can pro

Re: Need GCC 3.3.6 PGP Signing Public Key

On Sat, 28 May 2005, imacat wrote: > This is imacat from Taiwan. I was downloading GCC 3.3.6. I saw it > was signed by PGP key 902C9419, and it displayed its owner as Gabriel > Dos Reis. But I can't find any other public source that can prove this > key as her/his, not even on GCC website ht

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

Hello Scott! I do know this: Many, many scientific and mathematical programmers find GCC frustrating and annoying, and most of those folk know far more about numbers than I do. I wish more of these people would feel comfortable posting to the GCC list, rather than sending private e-mails to my i

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

Paul Thomas wrote: > Andrew, > > >>This is PR 21766. Patch here: >>. >> > > > You will have to explain this to me very slowly, preferably in baby talk Heh, I thought the same when I read the desription of what happens :-) - Tobi

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

I applied Danny's patch and got to: al/include -I/usr/local/include \ ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c: In function `i386_pe_mark_dllexport': ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c:286: warning: implicit declaration of function `DECL_NON_ADDR_CONST_P' ../../gcc/gcc

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > The separation of glibc and GCC leads to many problems not faced by > commercial compilers; not only can a commercial compiler focus on a > single platform, it also ships a C library as an integral part of the > compiler package. Thus a commercial co

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

On May 28, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: Andrew, This is PR 21766. Patch here: . You will have to explain this to me very slowly, preferably in baby talk The bug was already reported and is PR 21766:

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

Andrew, This is PR 21766. Patch here: . You will have to explain this to me very slowly, preferably in baby talk Paul T

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

On May 28, 2005, at 6:44 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: The last few days have seen this failure: I refreshed my source completely, on this occasion, to see if I could get round it. I'll submit a PR tonight if somebody has not found the problem. This is PR 21766. Patch here:

Re: More front end type mismatch problems

On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:02:49AM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote: > Especially for the purpose of VRP, why wouldn't it be most ideally > appropriate to define the result of a comparison to be a _Bool, as it's > Read my original message. (_Bool)1 + (_Bool)1 is folded to 0. I needed it to be folded to

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Toon Moene wrote: > > Good Luck :-) > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-08/msg00368.html > > > > (it's only four years ago - I can also show you my contributions in this > > thread in 1999, i.e., the previous millennium). > > Just out of cu

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Joseph S. Myers wrote: > They didn't fail altogether; -ffast-math was split into multiple > options (-funsafe-math-optimizations -fno-trapping-math etc.) in > March 2001, following an analysis of everything that checked > flag_fast_math >

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Toon Moene wrote: > Good Luck :-) > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-08/msg00368.html > > (it's only four years ago - I can also show you my contributions in this > thread in 1999, i.e., the previous millennium). Just out of curiosity, why did previous efforts fail in this regard? Was it sim

Re: GCC 3.3.6 has been released

On Fri, 27 May 2005, R Hill wrote: > a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations. Thanks, I just installed your patch. Gerald

Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

The last few days have seen this failure: I refreshed my source completely, on this occasion, to see if I could get round it. I'll submit a PR tonight if somebody has not found the problem. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /cygdrive/d/gcc-cvs/build $ ../gcc/configure --enable-maintainer-mode --enable-share

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: On Friday 27 May 2005 13:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote: So, yes, -ffast-math by default would really be a bad idea and would make gcc much worse than other compilers. Thanks for the tests. I had no idea GCCs fast-math was that different from other compilers. May