Re: GCC back-ends

2005-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
"Domagoj D" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does GCC front- and middle-end keep the source code line numbers all > the way until the RTL is generated? I'd need that for the tool I'm > developing. Yes. They have to, in order to generate correct debugging information. > Also, are there any simple s

Re: Installing libgcj consumes huge amounts of memory

2005-12-03 Thread Alan Modra
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:35:31AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > spawns a recursive make (GNU make 3.80) that consumes some 450MB of memory > and triggers a system load of 12+, basically rendering the machine dead > for about a minute. > > On a different machine with only 512MB + 1GB swap, this

Installing libgcj consumes huge amounts of memory

2005-12-03 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
Is anyone seeing this? With current 4.1 sources, on a machine with "only" 1GB of main memory + 1GB swap, the following part of `make install` Adding java source files from srcdir '/cvs/gcc/trunk/libjava/classpath'. Adding java source files from VM directory /cvs/gcc/trunk/libjava /tmp/OBJ-120

LTO, LLVM, etc.

2005-12-03 Thread Mark Mitchell
I've been watching the LLVM/LTO discussion with interest. I'm learning that I need to express myself carefully, because people read a lot into what I say, so I've been watching, and talking with lots of people, but not commenting. But, I've gotten a couple of emails asking me what my thoughts are

gcc-4.2-20051203 is now available

2005-12-03 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20051203 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20051203/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

gcc-4.0-20051124-4.0-20051201.diff.bz2 is TERRIBLE!!!

2005-12-03 Thread J.C.
*** gcc-4.0-20051124/gcc/config/i386/i386.c Mon Nov 7 18:55:03 2005 --- gcc-4.0-20051201/gcc/config/i386/i386.c Thu Dec 1 01:53:01 2005 ! #if defined(HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN) && defined(SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY) ! #if defined(HAVE_GAS_HIDDEN) && (SUPPORTS_ONE_ONLY - 0) Why did he remove the 'define