> On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > Some OSes (like linux I believe) cache the lookups of the parent
> > directories so the speedups are not as pronounced. However GCC is
> > developed, and SVN is probably used, on many more places than just
> > linux filesys
Gabor Loki wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> I've reviewed the GCC 4.2 projects on the Wiki.
>>
>> It certainly looks like some exciting stuff is in the pipeline.
>
>
> I hope it is not too late to merge the Code Factoring Optimizations branch
> in GCC 4.2.
It is not too late to merge it, pro
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 10:20:26PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Some OSes (like linux I believe) cache the lookups of the parent
> directories so the speedups are not as pronounced. However GCC is
> developed, and SVN is probably used, on many more places than just
> linux filesystems. I know m
> On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:14 -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > (BTW, sorry for the reposted messages.)
> >
> > While I was waiting for some svn commands to finish (cleanup,
> > update) on my solaris2.7 box, which has a slow filesystem, I
> > happened to run truss -p out o
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 13:48 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> I also have this arm-rtems specific patch. Something changed after
> 4.0.x and none of the RTEMS BSPs would link before I added this.
>
> Index: gcc/config/arm/rtems-elf.h
> ==
Kazu Hirata wrote:
I have a question about having multiple insns for one operation. Take
m68k port for example. It has many SImode move insns like so:
Now, is it OK to have this many?
It isn't ideal. It can work if you aren't doing things that will cause
reload to fail. I suspect the real
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Chris Lattner wrote:
This is a direct result of the representation that you are proposing to use
for IPA. LLVM is *always* capable of merging two translation units correctly,
So compilation options which change the semantics o
Manu Abraham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When one does a
>
> typedef uint8_t array[10];
>
> what does really happen ?
This question does not concern the development of the GCC compiler in any way,
so it does not belong here. Please post it to support forums for th eC
language.
Giovanni Bajo
> Hello Everyone,
> I am interested in knowing more about the vectorizer in GCC. Does
> anyone have or know of any statistics about the percentage of loops
> that can be vectorized in some benchmarks like MediaBench, SPEC2K and
> so forth?
>
I have some old Spec2000 statistics, from around
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005, Chris Lattner wrote:
> This is a direct result of the representation that you are proposing to use
> for IPA. LLVM is *always* capable of merging two translation units correctly,
So compilation options which change the semantics of GIMPLE are translated
into local flags on
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
I am working on a portable low-level library of atomic operations,
Like the existing libatomic-ops package?
Why does __sparc_v9__ depend on the number of bits instead of the -mcpu?
Is this a GCC bug? I've found an e-mail by Jakub Jelinek, which claims, that
Jakub was p
Thank you very much Mr. Naishlos.
-Balaji V. Iyer.
-Original Message-
From: Dorit Naishlos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:47 PM
To: Balaji V. Iyer
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Vectorizer in GCC 4.0
> Hello Everyone,
> I am interested in knowing m
Rainer Emrich wrote:
ERROR: could not compile testsuite_shared.cc
This is the important bit. The libstdc++ testsuite tried to compile a
support file and failed, so it generated an error. The rest is just a
tcl backtrace which we don't need.
The real question here is why it failed. There
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You would do much better with a qualified tool to enforce the subset
| (GCC itself cannot conceivably be qualified).
I believe we're in agreement :-)
-- Gaby
Joe Buck wrote:
I think that this discussion is premature; no one is proposing to
contribute a patch or signing up to start working on one, right? Until
then, arguing about the goodness of MISRA C isn't really relevant to
GCC development.
I agree, and by the way, though not sharing quite so m
Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:-
> Hi
>
> Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking of
> MISRA C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
Derek Jones analyses them here
http://www.knosof.co.uk/misracom.html
and they don't come off looking well thought-o
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >We've gotten to deal with SC people and they do also believe it is a
> >miserable subset of C.
Pun, hmm? (MISRAble).
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:26:58PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Well it is as far as I know, the only recognized subset of C for
> this purpose, and the
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We've gotten to deal with SC people and they do also believe it is a
miserable subset of C.
Well it is as far as I know, the only recognized subset of C for
this purpose, and there are a number of standards that approve
e.g. the use of Ada or MISRA C, but not any other
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I cannot speak for others, but my quick look as what MISRA C is,
| > left me not really wanting to be subjected to it.
|
| Fine, you probably will not find SC environments to be your cup of tea :-)
We've gotten to deal with SC people and they do also
Fredrik Hederstierna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
|
| Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
I believe it defines a miserable subset of C with miserable coding
rules -- albeit used in some
David Daney wrote:
Some people chafe at the idea of arbitrary restrictions being put on
them in the name of protecting them from themselves.
Such people will not find themselves programming safety critical
applications, since in a certified SC environment, such restrictions
(which are hardly a
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at it, this seems to be quite deliberate: combine_instructions()
> calls init_recog_no_volatile() before it runs the combine pass and
> init_recog() afterward. I haven't delved into the morass of machine-generated
> loveliness that is insn-recog
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 09:53:13PM +0100, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
> Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so
> terrible though.
This is a bit off topic, but since you asked: the MISRA rules are a set
of safety-oriented style guidelines, some of which can be reasonably
enfo
> CC to cc only. So, now the script is:
>
> CC=cc
> export CC
> ../gcc-4.0.2/configure
> gmake bootstrap
Do not export CC and do not use a relative path:
CC=cc $absolute_path/configure ...
> Also, the ask why I was using the flags I was. The only reference I found
> to sparc where the sparcv9-*-s
On Sun, 2005-11-20 at 12:01, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
> What do you thing about adding an assert? Something similar to the attached
> patch.
I think there is no chance of a user seeing this problem. It can only
occur when working on a front end, in which case the problem would be
obvious
Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
Some people chafe at the idea of arbitrary restrictions being put on
them in the name of protecting them from themselv
Hi,
When one does a
typedef uint8_t array[10];
what does really happen ?
For example, i was looking at some code in the public domain, which had
it like this ..
u8 is again typedef'd from a unsigned char
#define TS_PACKET_SIZE 188
#define TS_IN_UDP 7
typedef u8 file_ts_packet[TS_PACKET_S
Thanks to everyone for the information below. I have change the
CC to cc only. So, now the script is:
CC=cc
export CC
../gcc-4.0.2/configure
gmake bootstrap
and I get the errors:
checking for sparc-sun-solaris2.9-gcc... no
checking for gcc... no
checking for sparc-sun-solaris2.9-cc... no
check
I installed the two patches below, in lign with your status report
and plans for 3.4.5 and 3.4.6.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.527
diff -u -3 -p -r1.527 index.html
> Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
Ok, you might be right, but I'm curious why you think it's so terrible though.
Is it becasue GCC hardly can be considered a "safe" compiler by the
standardisation organisations due to the nature of the development process,
which
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
| > Hi
| >
| > Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking
| > of MISRA C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
|
| Not that I know of,
Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Selon Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environmen
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment in mind? What "--enable-rtemsbsp=X" should
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:14:14PM +0100, Fredrik Hederstierna wrote:
> Hi
>
> Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking
> of MISRA C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
Not that I know of, and personally I think it's a terrible idea,
although I'm su
The tarballs for GCC-3.4.5 pre-release are available at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org:/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.5-20051121/
Please download and test them.
Please, fill bugzilla PRs if you cencounter problems and make sure I'm
in the CC: list.
Thanks,
-- Gaby
Selon Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
> > done no testing beyond that.
>
> Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
> environment in mind? Wha
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
> done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment in mind? What "--enable-rtemsbsp=X" should I use?
I'm building u
Hi
Do anyone know if there exist any project to get GCC support checking of MISRA
C rules? Otherwise, do anyone think this is a good idea?
BR,
Fredrik
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I can also add a checkbox to make it not autowrap a comment by marking
| them as already wrapped
Yes!!!
Thanks,
-- Gaby
Selon "Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the
> arm-rtems
> >>target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-
Morning gcc-hackers!
I was wondering why combine could piece together two insns like these:
(insn 11 5 12 0 0x1002f330 (set (reg:QI 74)
(mem:QI (reg/v/f:SI 70) [0 S1 A8])) 25 {movqi} (insn_list 3 (nil))
(expr_list:REG_DEA
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the C
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:49 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
> | > about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form. The
> | > free form presents itself with a
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
I didnt get your point. I am allocating space only for 400 inregers
then as soon as in the loop if it crosses the value of 400 , it should
have given a segementation voilation ?
No. For that to happen, you need some memory checker. GCC has -fmudflap, t
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 12:09:08PM -0500, Scott Gilbertson wrote:
> The problem doesn't appear with branch-4.0 (same glibc). Do you suppose the
> gcc has recently started using some busted glibc feature (busted in my
> old-ish glibc, that is) that wasn't being used before...
Well, a new feature,
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> If you attach a patch and your mail client is sane, it will be marked as
> a patch attachment to the bug
>
Okay, thanks.
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
| > about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form. The
| > free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
| > writing my comment to choose c
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>>Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
>>about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form. The
>>free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
>>writing my comment to choose carefully the length of the li
> Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
> about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form. The
> free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
> writing my comment to choose carefully the length of the lines and add
> appropri
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
>
>>Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi all, hi Danny,
>>>
>>>recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
>>>up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
>>>of
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 17:14 +0100, Frédéric PRACA wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the
> arm-rtems
> target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
> What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the C and C++
> cros
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi all, hi Danny,
> >
> > recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
> > up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
> > of the "Additional Comments" free for
> > Looking at the changes to unwind-dw2-fde-glibc.c, I see that the parts
of
> > the code I've shown here were structured differently in the 4.0 branch
> > (which works just fine for me with static builds). Maybe that's a clue.
>
> Um, I don't see that at all. I see some minor changes wrt abort,
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 04:21:15PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> What am I missing?
I don't know. If folk think I'm wrong about these semantics,
feel free to submit a patch.
r~
Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have also seen that bugzilla reformats the incoming emails by
> wrapping lines longer than ~80 columns. I feel this behavior annoying
> for patches that get scrambled.
You shouldn't put patches in comments anyway.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi all, hi Danny,
>
> recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
> up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
> of the "Additional Comments" free form and the wideness after which
> chars are wrapped upon the Commit.
Hi all, hi Danny,
recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
of the "Additional Comments" free form and the wideness after which
chars are wrapped upon the Commit. Thus, I write 'til close to the r
Hi,
I'm currently trying to build an Ada cross compiler for ARM using the arm-rtems
target. I tried with GCC 4.0.2 and subversion-version but I failed.
What should I know to do this knowing that I already built the C and C++
cross-compilers ?
Thanks
Fred
> How about this? Can I commit it?
Please always remember to provide a changelog when submitting a patch,
thanks ;-)
Patch is OK, assuming reasonable changelog entry.
Arno
> Index: gcc/ada/socket.c
> ===
> --- gcc/ada/socket.c
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've reviewed the GCC 4.2 projects on the Wiki.
It certainly looks like some exciting stuff is in the pipeline.
I hope it is not too late to merge the Code Factoring Optimizations branch
in GCC 4.2. The branch is stable and brings about 2% code size save.
I am going to cr
* Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2005-11-21 :
> How about this? Can I commit it?
Looks good, please go ahead.
Thanks!
Thomas.
--
Thomas Quinot, Ph.D. ** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** Senior Software Engineer
AdaCore -- Paris, France -- New York, USA
Thomas Quinot wrote:
* Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2005-11-17 :
I hope the explanation above helps make it clearer.
Yes, thanks for the clarification. In light of this explanation the
proposed fix seems appropriate; maybe a comment could be added along
with the extern declaration to
Richard,
in the context of internal discussions regarding target/24757 I have
been made aware of a change to the sync operations on ia64, and I have
problems understanding
>This differs from the generic code in that we know about the
zero-extending
>properties of cmpxchg, and the zero-ext
"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > I'm planning a release for the end of the month.
| > I've fired the release script to build a pre-release tarball,
| > which should be ready any moment now.
|
| Thanks. Are there official plans for th
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> The bottom line is that personally, I'm not in love with tree-ssa or my
> code enough that I think ego should stand in the way of GCC making the
> right decision. I would hope others who have written the "shiny new
> tree optimizers" feel the same way.
>
Seconded. I
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm planning a release for the end of the month.
> I've fired the release script to build a pre-release tarball,
> which should be ready any moment now.
Thanks. Are there official plans for the 3.4 branch after this release?
--
Giovanni Bajo
Hi,
I've triaged open bugs with GCC-3.4.5 as target. At the moment,
we're left with 2 bugs I consider critical. We should try to fix them
before the release:
middle-end/18956 [3.4 only] [hppa] 'bus error' at runtime while
passing a special struct to a C++ member function
Sandeep Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I didnt get your point. I am allocating space only for 400 inregers
> then as soon as in the loop if it crosses the value of 400 , it should
> have given a segementation voilation ?
No. For that to happen, you need some memory checker. GCC has -fmudflap,
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
As for building GNAT, you do need the same environment to
run make check-ada, meaning an existing Ada compiler in your PATH
to support the infrastructure of make check (this compiler is not tested
by make check-ada, only used by the infrastructure).
Thanks.
May I suggest
69 matches
Mail list logo
