Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I think we need to finally come up with a way to build the compiler and
libraries at different times.
Don't tease me.
--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer? See
http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 23:39 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
> > from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
> > etc), and add a news item saying:
> >
> > "GC
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:41 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 8, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Tried building fsf mainline on x86-darwin. Syntax error compiling
c-common.c. The preprocessed file shows the following:
This is a darwin specific bug and was introduced by Geoff K.'s
On Jul 8, 2005, at 5:36 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 17:13 -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Tried building fsf mainline on x86-darwin. Syntax error compiling c-
common.c. The preprocessed file shows the following:
as of when?
I bootstrapped and tested x86_64-unknown-linu
On Jul 8, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Tried building fsf mainline on x86-darwin. Syntax error compiling
c-common.c. The preprocessed file shows the following:
This is a darwin specific bug and was introduced by Geoff K.'s patch
today.
I committed this as obvious to fix the bu
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 17:13 -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
> Tried building fsf mainline on x86-darwin. Syntax error compiling c-
> common.c. The preprocessed file shows the following:
>
as of when?
I bootstrapped and tested x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and x86-linux-gnu and
powerpc-linux-gnu in t
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
etc), and add a news item saying:
"GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > So, what do people think about (a) deleting the big comment in gcc.c
> > that tries to explain specs (leaving a pointer to the manual), and (b)
> > moving the specs documentation to the internals manual?
>
> I think it's a good idea - but someone s
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Keating) writes:
* gcc.c: Include xregex.h.
(version_compare_spec_function): New.
(spec_function): Add version-compare.
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 04:29:49PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> I agree with both comments here: it's lame that we have duplicated
> documentation (and explains why I didn't realise that I had to change
> two places), and I don't think that we should be considering specs to
> be an user-level i
Tried building fsf mainline on x86-darwin. Syntax error compiling c-
common.c. The preprocessed file shows the following:
if ("__builtin_" "acosf" && 1)
{ tree decl;
((void)(!((!1 && !1) || !strncmp ("__builtin_" "acosf",
"__builtin_", strlen ("__builtin_"))) ? fancy_abort ("../../gcc-
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 7 Jul 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Keating) writes:
> >
> > > * gcc.c: Include xregex.h.
> > > (version_compare_spec_function): New.
> > > (spec_function): Add version-compare.
> > > (replace_outfi
On Jul 5, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 5, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Daniel Kegel wrote:
Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get this error compiling linux-2.6.11.3 with gcc-4.1-20050702 on
many targets:
drivers/char/random.c:1813: internal compiler error: in
cgraph_early_inli
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
> from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
> etc), and add a news item saying:
>
> "GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects were
> contribut
I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
etc), and add a news item saying:
"GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects were
contributed: . Thank you to all contributors, testers,
and ev
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
| On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Is it true that nobody wanted to approved GCC-3.3.6 release
| > announcement? :-/
|
| I believe Jeff Law and Mark Mitchell are the two list admins with
| approval rights; it might be a good idea to generall
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 2005-06-26 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * doc/install.texi (Specific): Do not specify the concrete
> versions of GCC provided by Cygwin. Simplify the part on
> building on Cygwin.
>
> Once GCC 4.0.1 has been released, I
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Is it true that nobody wanted to approved GCC-3.3.6 release
> announcement? :-/
I believe Jeff Law and Mark Mitchell are the two list admins with
approval rights; it might be a good idea to generally add release
managers.
Gerald
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 05:30:26PM -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> cvtss2sd[EMAIL PROTECTED](%ecx), %xmm0
>
> (this is Linux, the same happens on Darwin).
> This is not really a good idea, as movsd of a double-precision 1.0 is
> faster. The change from double to single precision
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 05:37:45PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Also, here is some code that tries to load 1.0 into an SSE register
> without using the constant pool. I don't know if it is fast or not.
...
> pinsrwl $3, %1, %0" : "=x" (i) : "r" (0x3ff0));
No, this instruction is dreadfu
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 20:43 +0800, IM.Nobody wrote:
> I can hardly believe there is no port of GCC to MIPS-X. Any clue would
> be helpful and greatly appreciated.
The question has been asked numerous times on the list. There's no port
because no one has done the work. Patches to support this will
(this is Linux, the same happens on Darwin).
This is not really a good idea, as movsd of a double-precision 1.0 is
faster.
I wonder whether fixing compress_float_constant is better. It seems
similar to the old hack in expr.c: expanding a/b to a*(1/b), and hope
that it is transformed back to
Oops, looks like I whined too early.
After an rm -rf in my gcc-build dir, and then using Laurent's configure
options, all is fine.
Thanks
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
4.0.1 builds fine on x86-linux and x86_64-linux, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00414.html
http://gcc.gnu.org
4.0.1 builds fine on x86-linux and x86_64-linux, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00414.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00432.html
You might want to try the configure options I used
there (see end of the reports above).
Sincerely,
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-
../prev-gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.1/configure --prefix=/e/gcc4 --enable-libada \
--enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++,ada,java
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.1
"make" and "make bootstrap" both fail to use the $(STAGE_PREFI
Hi,
Is it true that nobody wanted to approved GCC-3.3.6 release announcement? :-/
--
Gabriel Dos Reis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Texas A&M University -- Computer Science Department
I can hardly believe there is no port of GCC to MIPS-X. Any clue would
be helpful and greatly appreciated.
Many thanks.
IM.
On 7/5/05, IM.Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the info.
>
> Any one knows a pubic or a private porting of GCC to MIPS-X??? Any
> help would be greatly appec
GCC 4.0.1 has been released.
This release is a minor release, containing primarily fixes for
regressions in GCC 4.0.0 releative to previous releases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html#4.0.1
This release is available from the FTP servers listed here:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
T
Taoufik HNIA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working on porting gcc for a 16 bits processor.
> I know that gcc supports arm,but I don't know if gcc supports 16 bits
> arm.So my question is :
> does gcc generate code for 16 bits arm ?
Yes, it does, with the -mthumb option.
This kind of questio
Hi,
I am working on porting gcc for a 16 bits processor.
I know that gcc supports arm,but I don't know if gcc supports 16 bits
arm.So my question is :
does gcc generate code for 16 bits arm ?
thak your for your help
Taoufik
30 matches
Mail list logo
