Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050714 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050714/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050714
You'll
> As I understand it, the only difference in the bumped version number
> is the address. Can anyone confirm this?
A simple diff shows other changes, including the all-new shared
library clause and the change of "Library" to "Lesser" in the name.
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:43:18PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > The FSF already asked GNU projects to correct the address.
>
> Correcting the address, yes. Changing to a different version of the
> LGPL though? Did they specifically say "Any sources using an old
> version of the LGPL should upgra
"Mark Cuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm trying to get myself a group of libraries that I can distribute
> with my program so that they'll run on any distro.
> I run into problems all the time when different distros have different
versions of system libraries like libstdc++, libgcc, libc, etc
> From: Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Paul" == Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Schlie wrote:
> What about optimising x*2/2 to x?
Given that "C" requires the above be evaluated as (x*2)/2, as the
language specifies
Hello all
I apologize if this is off topic for this list - I wasn't sure exactly where
to ask but I thought this would be a good place to start:
I'm trying to get myself a group of libraries that I can distribute with my
program so that they'll run on any distro. I run into problems all the
This past week I have been looking into type mismatch in simple cases
in GCC.
These simple cases include non compatible types on the two sides of the
MODIFY_EXPR
and comparisons. All the bugs I have found so far have been filed.
They are all listed
under the meta-bug, PR 22368.
The summary is
> "Paul" == Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Paul Schlie wrote:
What about optimising x*2/2 to x?
>>> Given that "C" requires the above be evaluated as (x*2)/2, as the
>>> language specifies that the syntax defines the precedence o
> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>
>> I don't contest that it may, I simply don't believe it should.
>
> you can't seriously mean that with respect to uninitialized
> variables. this would mean you could not put local variables in
> registers. the effect on code qual
I'm finally ready to check in the big classpath merge, and I wanted to
post a short warning before I went ahead with it.
For those who don't know about this, there is a description here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java/2005-05/msg00202.html
I've tested this merge natively (including multilib) and wi
Paul Schlie wrote:
I don't contest that it may, I simply don't believe it should.
you can't seriously mean that with respect to uninitialized
variables. this would mean you could not put local variables in registers.
the effect on code quality woul be awful!
> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>>> What about optimising x*2/2 to x?
>>
>> Given that "C" requires the above be evaluated as (x*2)/2, as the language
>> specifies that the syntax defines the precedence of the operations, and that
>> no optimization should alter the
Paul Schlie wrote:
What about optimising x*2/2 to x?
Given that "C" requires the above be evaluated as (x*2)/2, as the language
specifies that the syntax defines the precedence of the operations, and that
no optimization should alter the behavior as specified by the program; I'd
say that unle
> Matthew Woodcraft writes:
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>>As optimization seems to be a non-argument, as by analogy all
>>optimizations which are available for unsigned arithmetic are
>>correspondingly available for signed integer operations; as any signed
>>value may then be thought of as being unsigned
> "Matthew" == Matthew Woodcraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Matthew> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> As optimization seems to be a non-argument, as by analogy all
>> optimizations which are available for unsigned arithmetic are
>> correspondingly available for signed integer operations; as any
>>
Paul Schlie wrote:
>As optimization seems to be a non-argument, as by analogy all
>optimizations which are available for unsigned arithmetic are
>correspondingly available for signed integer operations; as any signed
>value may then be thought of as being unsigned for the purposes of
>computation a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(insn 12 11 13 (set (reg:SI 168)
(plus:SI (reg/v:SI 166 [ a ])
(reg/v:SI 167 [ b ]))) -1 (nil)
(nil))
(insn 13 12 14 (set (reg:CC 33 cr1)
(compare:CC (reg:SI 168)
(const_int 0 [0x0]))) -1 (nil)
(nil))
My pattern is
(
Please update http://gcc.gnu.org/java/index.html and mention
how much of the Java 1.5 spec that GCJ currently implements.
When I refer folks to GCJ, the first thing they usually ask is,
"does it support generics?" "autoboxing?" and so on. That info
should be right up on the GCJ front page -- even
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:56:19PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> > > The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
> > > COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
> >
> > Changing licensing terms is usually a question for the FSF, not the
> > maintainers.
>
>
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 09:56:19PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > The src directory currently is version 2.0 instead of 2.1 for
> > COPYING.LIB. Should the license file be upgraded on src?
>
> Changing licensing terms is usually a question for the FSF, not the
> maintainers.
The FSF already as
Dear list,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/GNU/gcc-4.0.1/TEST5#gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: alphaev68-dec-osf5.1b
Configured with:
../configure
--host=alphaev68-dec-osf5.1b
--enable-threads=posix
--enable-languages=c,c++,f95,objc,java,treelang
--prefix=/usr/local
--enable-version-specific-runtime-
Hi,
I am trying to separate move immediates that require more than 16 bits
into two instructions that set the high and low 16 bits of a register
respectively. Here is my define_expand:
(define_expand "movsi"
[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "")
(match_operand:SI 1 "gene
Alain Moïse Dikandé wrote:
>I have linux mandrake 10.2 on a PC but I cannot run gnuplot.I fact when I use
>the command gnuplot to call the program, the response is "not found". Please
>can someone indicate me where i can download gnuplot for linux?
>
> gnuplot is a plotting package; its homepage i
Original Message
>From: Alain Moïse Dikandé
>Sent: 14 July 2005 16:17
> I have linux mandrake 10.2 on a PC but I cannot run gnuplot.I fact when I
> use the command gnuplot to call the program, the response is "not found".
> Please can someone indicate me where i can download gnuplot for li
I have linux mandrake 10.2 on a PC but I cannot run gnuplot.I fact when I use
the command gnuplot to call the program, the response is "not found". Please
can someone indicate me where i can download gnuplot for linux?
> ibanez writes:
ibanez> 2.)
ibanez> add_c <- add & update condition register
ibanez> But case 2 pattern is not used at all.
ibanez> (define_insn "..."
ibanez> [ (set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=g")
ibanez> (plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "g")
ibanez> (match_
Greetings:
Can someone explain why libgnat is defaulted to STATIC? I would think that
SHARED would be the desired default.
Does SHARED cause problems when building cross compilers?
Scott McConnell
[resending - forgot to finish subject line before]
I'm seeing the following ICE
building a large app with gcc-4.1-20050702 for i686-linux:
ext/mt_allocator.h:450: internal compiler error: in write_template_arg_literal,
at cp/mangle.c:2228
If it still happens with the next snapshot, I'll
submit
/gcc/4.0/gcc-4.0.1/config.guess
i686-pc-cygwin
$ /work/install/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-cygwin
Configured with: /gcc/4.0/gcc-4.0.1/configure --verbose
--prefix=/work/install --exec-prefix=/work/install --sysconfdir=/work/i
nstall/etc --libdir=/work/install/lib --libexecdir=
On 7/14/05, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As subject says - on x86_64 it takes a whopping 30 minutes to
> compile said with -fprofile-generate!
It's caused by -frename-registers enabled by -funroll-loops. Compiling
with -O2 -fno-unroll-loops -fprofile-generate compared to -O2 -
I'm writing a gcc back-end for a new RISC.
This RISC has two kinds of add instructions,
one updates condition register and one doesn't.
ex.
1.)
add <- add
comp<- update condition register
2.)
add_c <- add & update condition register
But case 2 pattern is not used at al
Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Guess that's because AC_HAVE_FUNCS(isinf) is wrong.
> isinf/isfinite/fpclassify are all documented as macros in ISO C99.
> So
>[AC_MSG_CHECKING(for isinf with )
> AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[#include
> volatile int x; volatile float f;]],
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 06:27:06PM +0900, Hiroshi Fujishima wrote:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why not just use AC_HAVE_FUNCS(isinf)? IIUC this is part of a configure
> > script, although whether it is autoconf generated is not clear so far.
>
> Though I don't know the why
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why not just use AC_HAVE_FUNCS(isinf)? IIUC this is part of a configure
> script, although whether it is autoconf generated is not clear so far.
Though I don't know the why, rrdtool-1.2.10/configure.ac has the
following macro.
dnl HP-UX 11.00 does no
> Why not just use AC_HAVE_FUNCS(isinf)? IIUC this is part of a configure
> script, although whether it is autoconf generated is not clear so far.
Real men write their configure checks by hand, although whether the rrdtool
maintainer is a male is not clear so far. ;-)
--
Eric Botcazou
Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe there is a simpler way? For example:
>
> volatile int a;
> volatile double b;
> int main ()
> {
>a = isinf (b);
>return 0;
> }
>
> This way the compiler must not assume anything about 'b',
> making it impossible to optimizes the call to i
As subject says - on x86_64 it takes a whopping 30 minutes to
compile said with -fprofile-generate! And of course profiledbootstrap
later fails with
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -g
-O2 -fprofile-use -freorder-blocks-and-partition -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
-Ww
Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 14/07/2005 10:05:50:
[...]
> union U {
> int i;
> double d;
> };
>
> volatile int a;
>
> int
> main (int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> union U u;
> u.i = argc;
> a = isinf (u.d);
> return 0;
> }
>
Doesn't the code display undefined behavior wh
> This may work today, but and still break in the future. This
> will not work (possibly) years from now when gcc will start
> doing VRP on math functions like isinf.
>
> MIN_INT <= argc <= MAX_INT falls well into representable
> values of double (assuming 32 bit int or less). This means
> that the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
>code which was written in response to a security report. They simply
>didn't know that there is a potential problem. The reason for this
>gap in knowledge isn't quite clear to me.
Well
40 matches
Mail list logo
