On Monday 01 August 2005 06:23, Rajkishore Barik wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to compile SPECINT 2000 176.gcc benchmark using GCC 4.1 April
> 24th build on Redhat Linux/i386.
> I get the following error while compiling "reorg.c":
>
> reorg.c: In function âfind_end_labelâ:
> reorg.c:831: error: invali
Hi,
I am trying to compile SPECINT 2000 176.gcc benchmark using GCC 4.1 April
24th build on Redhat Linux/i386.
I get the following error while compiling "reorg.c":
reorg.c: In function âfind_end_labelâ:
reorg.c:831: error: invalid lvalue in increment
reorg.c: In function âdelete_from_delay_slotâ:
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:20 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
> just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
> which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.
>
> I don't follow
You don't really need copyright assignment (IE you can go along with
just licenses) unless you plan on suing people over your documentation,
which seems even less likely than suing someone over your code.
I don't follow. The issue is that somebody claims that the FSF documentation
inf
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 22:50 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >>For code.
> >>I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> >>easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
> >
> >
> > I hav
Hi,
First, thx for u all reading this mail. I have some
problems when I was using std::string when I was
writing my multi-threaded server. I am using libstdc++
5.0.3. and using pthread to do multi threading. The
errors are as the followings.
shot 1
#0 0xbfdb3bc6 in std::__default_alloc_template:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Does the instruction combiner regards (foo & 0xff) as a special case?
>
> I have two patterns which I expect to match all the
>
> if(foo & $(constant)) patterns. They are
>
> [(set (reg:CC_Z CC_REGNUM)
> (compare:CC_Z
> (and:SI (match_operand:
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
For code.
I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
removing stuff is a remedy for copyright vi
Does the instruction combiner regards (foo & 0xff) as a special case?
I have two patterns which I expect to match all the
if(foo & $(constant)) patterns. They are
[(set (reg:CC_Z CC_REGNUM)
(compare:CC_Z
(and:SI (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "")
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> I was waiting for a gfortran maintainer to comment -- if it's fine
>> with them, it surely is fine with me.
> The patch is fine. I was going to commit it, but real life
> has taken over and gfortran is way down the list of important
> things to do.
It's
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 01:19:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Brooks Moses wrote:
> >> As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
> >> submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
> >> the gfortran "home page", right below
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> For code.
> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
Gerald
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 23:12 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> > on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > or we may be in troubles at some point
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
>> submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
>> the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
> Oh, bother. I just noticed that I failed to
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 01:02 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> >> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> > We are not the first nor the last project
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> or we may be in troubles at some point in the future when we try to move
> documentation around.
The same
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
>> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
> move documentation from the wiki
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 00:30 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
> >> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
> >> to update and maintain.
> > Great idea, I agree.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
>> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
>> to update and maintain.
> Great idea, I agree.
> We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over th
It has gotten to the point where people are reporting bugs in our wiki
that i can't fix because the phpwiki code it too much like spaghetti.
There is one main phpwiki developer, and while he's very good at php
development, the codebase dwarfs him :).
I'm thinking of moving us to a more actively d
In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead
of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the
gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's
compiler I can have a Makefile entry like...
createSharedModule = $(CXX) -bundle \
Hello!
With -march=pentium4 -mfpmath=sse -O2, we get an extra move for code like
double d = atof(foo);
int i = d;
callatof
fstpl -8(%ebp)
movsd -8(%ebp), %xmm0
cvttsd2si %xmm0, %eax
(This is Linux, Darwin is similar.) I think the difficulty is
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:57:49 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > You may wish to read the proceedings from this year's GCC summit, where
> > another solution was presented by some gentlemen from Intel. For various
> > reasons, symbol ve
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:57:49 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> You may wish to read the proceedings from this year's GCC summit, where
> another solution was presented by some gentlemen from Intel. For various
> reasons, symbol versioning is not a useful solution to this problem.
I hadn't seen th
24 matches
Mail list logo
