> make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/scratch/nightly/2006-07-04/i686'
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> Bootstrap comparison failure!
Does the attached patch make any difference?
--
Eric B
On Jul 4, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
On the other hand, I now get tons of failures in libjava on x86-64
while
Andreas' testsuite is clean:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-07/msg00164.html
... I get the tons of failures in libjava at rev 115159 too!
Those should be
> That might be my SRA patch (revision 115160) although it bootstraps fine
> for me on i586 and for Joe on i686:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-07/msg00157.html
Or might not because...
> On the other hand, I now get tons of failures in libjava on x86-64 while
> Andreas' testsuite is
Hello GCC list:
I am wondering if i have used -O, -O2 or -O3, do i still benifit from
flags such as -march -fmpmath -ffast-math -mmx -sse -sse2 -3dnow?
I am optimizing a video codec and i see barely any performance
difference whether i use just -O2 or "-ffast-math -march=athlon-xp
-mmmx -msse
On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Yuri Pudgorodsky wrote:
Can someone make the decision to reopen PR optimization/12085?
And I posted a patch to do the same in Objective-C mode as C mode :).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg01013.html
-- Pinski
So that ICE still exist for objective-c and is just hidden with
warn/trap workaround
for c/c++:
double foo(double arg)
{
return arg;
}
int bar(int d)
{
d = ((int (*) (int)) foo)(d);
return d *d;
}
If you compile the above example in objective-c mode (gcc -O3 -x
objective-c),
current mainl
> Are you using --with-arch=i686 ?
Yes, I cannot reproduce the bootstrap failure with
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/build/gcc/native32> gcc/xgcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: /home/eric/svn/gcc/configure i686-pc-linux-gnu
--prefix=/home/eric/install/gcc --with-as=/usr
On Jul 4, 2006, at 10:58 AM, J.J.Garcia wrote:
Im involved in testing some old stuff about gcc 2.95.3 for an
specific arch and
i realize after looking at gcc.gnu.org that there are not the
corresponding test
cases for dejaGNU
Please, does anybody knows where i can get them? Actually im usin
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > Yuri Pudgorodsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Compiling openssl-0.9.8b with gcc-4.2 snapshots, I found gcc 4.2
> > > fortifies its check for function pointer conversion and generates
> > > abort for PEM_read_X50
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Not sure what's going on exactly...
Using -fdump-unnumbered dumps, I find the first significant difference
in 144r.peephole2:
13868a13869,13880
> (set (reg:SI 2 cx)
> (ior:SI (ashiftrt:SI (reg:SI 2 cx)
> (const_int
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Not sure what's going on exactly...
The machines I use have the 'security enhancement' enabled which makes
addresses vary
between program invocations. So if code generation depends on pointer
values at any
point, this will cause varying beha
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Not sure what's going on exactly...
The machines I use have the 'security enhancement' enabled which makes
addresses vary
between program invocations. So if code generation depends on pointer
values at any
point, this will cause varying behaviour.
A common mistake
Hi folks,
Im involved in testing some old stuff about gcc 2.95.3 for an specific arch and
i realize after looking at gcc.gnu.org that there are not the corresponding test
cases for dejaGNU fw (testsuite folder), to be more precise there is not a
testsuite folder at http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/tags/
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Yuri Pudgorodsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Compiling openssl-0.9.8b with gcc-4.2 snapshots, I found gcc 4.2
> > fortifies its check for function pointer conversion and generates
> > abort for PEM_read_X509_AUX() and similar wrappers.
>
> Personally speaki
> Revision: 115174
>
> build/host/target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
>
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/scratch/nightly/2006-07-04/i686'
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
> Bootstrap comparison fail
Yuri Pudgorodsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Compiling openssl-0.9.8b with gcc-4.2 snapshots, I found gcc 4.2
> fortifies its check for function pointer conversion and generates
> abort for PEM_read_X509_AUX() and similar wrappers.
Personally speaking, I agree with you that the compiler should
Revision: 115174
build/host/target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
# This directory was configured as follows,
# on host linsvr6:
#
# ../srcw/configure --with-arch=i686 --disable-gdb
--enable-languages=c,c++,ja
va,objc
make[3]: Leaving directory `/mnt/scratch/nightly/2006-07-04/i686'
Comparing stages 2
Compiling openssl-0.9.8b with gcc-4.2 snapshots, I found gcc 4.2
fortifies its check for function pointer conversion and generates
abort for PEM_read_X509_AUX() and similar wrappers.
There was an old discussion about casting pointer to function
issue - "Why does casting a function generate a run-t
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The SC discussed it with Richard Stallman, and he agrees that it is not
"dangerous" (the FSF had raised objections to byte-code systems in the
past, so many of us assumed there would be a problem). So there is no
political/legal objection to including a CIL back end. If i
HI all.
Could someone please send me the "copyright assignment form"?
Thanks.
Daniel
20 matches
Mail list logo
