On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 19:40 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2006, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > I see that from time to time, more on SMP/dual core machines, if you add
> > sync or sleep it goes away but the run is slower. I've always assumed
> > it's some kind of process/kernel/fs race
Hi Grabiel,
On 26 Apr 2006 20:36:27 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I hope that does not fire up warnings for the following case and variants
struct A { /* ... */ };
struct B { /* ... */ };
struct C : A, B { /* ... */ };
void f(B*);
C c;
f(&c);
as the call t
Hi Ian,
I have submitted the project proposal to Google so it should be
available to GCC for review.
Although I cannot edit it anymore, any comment, criticism (even in the
language, I am not native English-speaker) would be welcome.
Cheers,
Manu.
On 26 Apr 2006 10:05:34 -0700, Ian Lanc
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060504 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060504/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On May 4, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Gary Funck wrote:
I've been looking at how GCC 4.0 handles "volatile" internally,
and may have a question/two on that later, but in the meantime,
I noticed some interesting differences in generated code that I
thought were a bit unusual, and was wondering if someone he
2006/5/4, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On May 4, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
> I used gcc-2.96 to compile gcc-3.4.6 core with the c++
> libraries added.
> It took almost if not two hours to compile and that was with these
> options:
>
> make CFLAGS='-O' LIBCFLAGS='-g -O2'
On May 4, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Bill Cunningham wrote:
I used gcc-2.96 to compile gcc-3.4.6 core with the c++
libraries added.
It took almost if not two hours to compile and that was with these
options:
make CFLAGS='-O' LIBCFLAGS='-g -O2'
LIBCXXFLAGS='-g -O2 -fno-implicit-templates' boot
I've been looking at how GCC 4.0 handles "volatile" internally,
and may have a question/two on that later, but in the meantime,
I noticed some interesting differences in generated code that I
thought were a bit unusual, and was wondering if someone here
might explain why GCC behaves as it does, an
I used gcc-2.96 to compile gcc-3.4.6 core with the c++ libraries added.
It took almost if not two hours to compile and that was with these options:
make CFLAGS='-O' LIBCFLAGS='-g -O2'
LIBCXXFLAGS='-g -O2 -fno-implicit-templates' bootstrap
This is supposed to save space. I want to cut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Hubicka wrote on 05/04/06 10:37:
> (honestly I have no idea how long this will take, but I take your
> promise of 12 weeks ;))
>
Notice that I never said *calendar* weeks. Given the exploratory
nature of some of these items, it may well take lon
H. J. Lu wrote:
> export BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SYSROOT_CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2 -fsee"
> # /configure
> # make BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Tromey wrote on 05/04/06 12:58:
> I've got a java-specific case or two that stress this idea a bit.
> Where should I file these?
>
The GCC wiki should be a good place for now. Some of the ideas
discussed in this thread are sprinkled throughout,
On May 4, 2006, at 5:05 AM, jacob navia wrote:
Well, I searched for those and found some usage examples in the
source of Apple Darwin gcc code for the startup. But then... is
that current?
This question lacks any detail that would allow me to answer it.
With enough detail, I could.
ALL
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:53:38PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > H J Lu writes:
>
> >> > This is case for all extensions for i386. For x86-64, only
> >> > zero_extendsidi2 won't clobber CC.
> >> Again, for x86.
>
> HJ> But SEE doesn't provide a way to deal with it.
>
> Um, so exten
> H J Lu writes:
>> > This is case for all extensions for i386. For x86-64, only
>> > zero_extendsidi2 won't clobber CC.
>> Again, for x86.
HJ> But SEE doesn't provide a way to deal with it.
Um, so extend SEE to better support your needs?
David
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:26:52PM +0300, Leehod Baruch wrote:
> Please, lets be more precise.
> All the problem you have listed here are problems that relates x86.
> There is no problem on PPC and as far as I know there is no problem
> on other platforms (at least no one complained about it).
> *A
>
> Before I open a bug report, I will ask it here:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat foo.c
> typedef struct A A;
> A *a;
>
> typedef struct A
> {
> int x;
> } A;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -c foo.c
> foo.c:7: error: redefinition of typedef 'A'
> foo.c:1: error: previous declaration of 'A' wa
Before I open a bug report, I will ask it here:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat foo.c
typedef struct A A;
A *a;
typedef struct A
{
int x;
} A;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -c foo.c
foo.c:7: error: redefinition of typedef 'A'
foo.c:1: error: previous declaration of 'A' was here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 12:49:03PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Are these an exported API?
Inasmuch as we've got to support them forever for binary
compatibility, I don't see why not.
r~
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> BUILD alone means that the sequence
>
> gnatchop x
> ls * > tmp
> main=`tail -1 tmp`
> echo "BUILD $main"
>
> got an empty tmp file.
>
> I see that from time to time, more on SMP/dual core machines, if you add
> sync or sleep it goes away but the run
BUILD alone means that the sequence
gnatchop x
ls * > tmp
main=`tail -1 tmp`
echo "BUILD $main"
got an empty tmp file.
I see that from time to time, more on SMP/dual core machines, if you add
sync or sleep it goes away but the run is slower. I've always assumed
it's some kind of process/kernel/f
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Diego> Yes, another thing that I now see that is implicit with the removal of
Diego> on-the-side data structures is the gradual removal of language hooks, or
Diego> the inclusion of enough original language information to recover from a
Di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Daney wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:31:15PM +0300, Nikolaos Kavvadias
>> wrote:
>>
>>> My question here is: culdn't "-Os" optimization option force
>>> .align 0 alignment? Is there any way to use the minimal data
>>>
Attila Horvath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks on Thu, 04 May 2006 06:18:42 -0800
about the official site for the f2c Fortran-to-C converter.
Try
ftp://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/f2c/
I just reached it without problems.
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 20:35 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> > 2006/5/3, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> The number of *host* systems we support that don't have mmap is
> >> approaching 0, if it is not there already :)
> >
> > Uhm, at least DJGPP as a GCC host
Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:31:15PM +0300, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
My question here is: culdn't "-Os" optimization option force .align 0
alignment? Is there any way to use the minimal data memory
requirements for global symbols possible?
While it could, I hope that it does n
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:31:15PM +0300, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
> My question here is: culdn't "-Os" optimization option force .align 0
> alignment? Is there any way to use the minimal data memory
> requirements for global symbols possible?
While it could, I hope that it does not go so far as
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 09:45:31AM -0400, Attila Horvath wrote:
> I searched online but can't seem to find an 'official'
> source for 'f2c' converter.
That program has nothing to do with gcc, so you are on the
wrong list.
But how hard did you search? Type "f2c" into Google and follow
the top lin
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:39:58AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> >>infrastructure to better support x86.
On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off
SEE in
override_options or XFAIL the tests f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Kenner wrote on 05/04/06 08:19:
> * Introduce the notion of GIMPLE statements and GIMPLE
> expressions. Each has attributes that the other does not need. A
> statement will have location information and no type, while an
> exp
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off SEE in
> override_options or XFAIL the tests for x86 until that work is committed.
Some of
I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off SEE in
override_options or XFAIL the tests for x86 until that work is committed.
David
> "jacob" == jacob navia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Unfortunately things are also worse for libgcj, in that we need to be
>> able to generate stack traces as well, and the trampoline function
>> approach won't work there.
>>
jacob> ? Sorry I do not follow here
The java runtime needs
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:25:22PM +0200, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
> The patches for SEE have been committed today.
>
> The minor style corrections requested by you in the
> final review approval will be in a follow-up patch
> to be submitted the next week.
>
I didn't see you have addressed the i
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jan Hubicka wrote on 05/04/06 08:36:
>
> > If you are interested in some sort of integration of changes in IPA
> > branch (IE whole program in SSA form), I can probably prepare sort of
> > merge patches for review (pretty much as I intend to
->We have several fortran programs developed under MS' Visual Studio and
->would like to convert them to be GCC/G77 compatible.
->Short of converting the programs manaully, is anyone aware of a conversion
->package capable of doing the conversion automagically?
if you are willing to move to the
All
I searched online but can't seem to find an 'official'
source for 'f2c' converter.
Does anyone know a/the website where I can find it?
Thx in advance
Attila
_
Mutsuura Associates, Inc. /\ \
Vienna, VA 22181 / \ \
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jan Hubicka wrote on 05/04/06 08:36:
> If you are interested in some sort of integration of changes in IPA
> branch (IE whole program in SSA form), I can probably prepare sort of
> merge patches for review (pretty much as I intend to finally do in ne
Michael Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi,
i am looking for a way to support fixedpoint operations in gcc in order
to produce efficient code for a dsp core.
The only obvious solution i am aware of would be to add support for a
language extension like DSP-C (www.dsp-c.org) or Embedded-C
(www.embedded-c.org)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there
i have a few questions on the optimizations for the MIPS target,
mostly regarding load/store instructions.
1. In the code generated for global symbols (e.g. arrays), the
alignment is always at 4-byte boundary and not at 1-byte boundary
(.a
The patches for SEE have been committed today.
The minor style corrections requested by you in the
final review approval will be in a follow-up patch
to be submitted the next week.
Mircea
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 03:05:26PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On 4/25/06, Momchil Velikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why does GCC emit multiple calls to __gcov_init, via mulitple (two)
> > > entries in
> > > the ctors table? For example "int foo () { return 0; }" compiled with
>
Hi,
nice that you are going to look into it. I am quite interested to help
here as you can probably guess ;) The overall plan looks good to me.
(and is pretty compatible with what I believe is needed) There are a
lots of details however
>
>
> Anything else I may have missed? There are oth
jacob navia writes:
> Andrew Haley a écrit :
>
> >Richard Henderson writes:
> > > On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:23:56PM +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> > > > Is there an equivalent API for linux?
> > >
> > > __register_frame_info_bases / __deregister_frame_info_bases.
> >
> >Are these an export
Richard Henderson writes:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:23:56PM +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> > Is there an equivalent API for linux?
>
> __register_frame_info_bases / __deregister_frame_info_bases.
Are these an exported API?
I metioned the existence of these entry points in a reply to Jacob
* Introduce the notion of GIMPLE statements and GIMPLE
expressions. Each has attributes that the other does not need. A
statement will have location information and no type, while an
expression will have type and no location information.
Expressions need locations too for proper
Andrew Haley a écrit :
Richard Henderson writes:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:23:56PM +0200, jacob navia wrote:
> > Is there an equivalent API for linux?
>
> __register_frame_info_bases / __deregister_frame_info_bases.
Are these an exported API?
I metioned the existence of these entry poi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The topic of our internal data structures comes up every so often and it
will become particularly important now that we are planning to add
link-time and dynamic optimizations to GCC.
I would like to get started on some initial cleanups that should h
Dear GCC community
We have several fortran programs developed under MS' Visual Studio and
would like to convert them to be GCC/G77 compatible.
Short of converting the programs manaully, is anyone aware of a conversion
package capable of doing the conversion automagically?
Thank you in advance
At
"Manfred von Willich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| | I'd encourage you to work up a solid proposal for ISO/ANSI and
| | propose it there.
|
| Being a newbie, I'd appreciate contact/site details for submissions to the
| ISO/ANSI standardisation forum (do I email [EMAIL PROTECTED]).
http
Hi,
i am looking for a way to support fixedpoint operations in gcc in order
to produce efficient code for a dsp core.
The only obvious solution i am aware of would be to add support for a
language extension like DSP-C (www.dsp-c.org) or Embedded-C
(www.embedded-c.org) to the compiler.
Is anybody
>
> I'm experiencing ACATS failures that manifest in
>
> splitting
> /abuild/rguenther/obj4/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/a/ada101a.ada into:
>ada101a.adb
> BUILD
> FAIL: ada101a
> BUILD
> FAIL: c760009
> splitting
> /abuild/rguenther/obj4/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/cd/cd2a22i.ada in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 03.05.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To make this work, we have to be careful not to generate as much garbage
> as we presently do, as we'll needlessly waste space in these pools.
> Right now, we're using GC partly to compensate for things like using
> tre
54 matches
Mail list logo
