"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >> After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous
| > >> status report, I've
On Mar 6, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Mike Stump schrieb:
I have a feeling sed -i isn't our friend.
fixed.
I can confirm that this fixed my build. I'm expected the regression
tester to follow shortly.
Thanks.
On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous
>> status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead
>> with GCC 4.
Dear all,
Just wanted to announce that we are working
on the GCC Interactive Compilation Interface to enable
automatic tuning of optimization heuristic. This interface
is used in HiPEAC, MilePost, SARC and GCCC projects.
A website with latest patches, software, forums, mailing lists,
publication
Hi Kenneth,
Just found your post in the gcc archive ;) - wanted to say that there have been
many projects
on the topic of optimal compiler flag selections. Actually, there are several
free and commercial
tools available for several years already: PathOpt from PathScale and ESTO from
IBM, for
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous
>> status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead
>> with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch.
>>
>
> I
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I advise that when adding a pass, regardless of whether the code can fit
in a single file or is large enough to need to use several separate files,
it's consistent to put all the files that implement the pass in the main 'gcc'
source directory
On 05/03/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous
> status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead
> with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4
On 06 March 2007 20:12, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>
> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
> I wonder where it has gone to.
>
>
> Any suggestions ??
Mike Stump schrieb:
It appears that one of these:
+ '[' -s .bad_compare ']'
+ exit 1
I have a feeling sed -i isn't our friend.
fixed.
Matthias
2007-03-06 Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/Makefile.am(gkeytool.pod): Don't use sed -i.
* doc/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>
> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
> I wonder where it has gone to.
>
>
> Any suggestions ??
1. Always pipe the build output to a file so
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into h
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
> myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
> It's using these flags by default:
> -W -Wall -Wwrite
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:50:47PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> >> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> >> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload
On 3/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload.c (full text below).
That is really obnoxious and should be removed.
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 18:18 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > It would be really sweet if we propagated the 'di - 4' into insn 8, then
> > recognized that di is now the value of SI 58, and propagated di into the
> > compare. insn 7 would be dead and we'd get the code the PR is looking
> > for :-)
>
On 3/6/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/5/07, Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
> >
> >>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
> >
> > Yes, this should be good and shouldn't need a lot of
On 3/5/07, Maxim Kuvyrkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote on 03/05/07 02:14:
>
>>o Fix passes that invalidate tree-ssa alias export.
>
> Yes, this should be good and shouldn't need a lot of work.
>
>>o { Fast but unsafe Gupta's aliasing patch, Unsafe
It appears that one of these:
r122580 | doko | 2007-03-05 15:23:18 -0800 (Mon, 05 Mar 2007) | 6 lines
2007-03-02 Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR classpath/31017:
committed for Petteri R<83>ty
<[EMAIL P
> It would be really sweet if we propagated the 'di - 4' into insn 8, then
> recognized that di is now the value of SI 58, and propagated di into the
> compare. insn 7 would be dead and we'd get the code the PR is looking
> for :-)
Unfortunately there's no hope of that because fwprop doesn't do
On 06/03/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/6/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, I use multiple inheritance in my project. In the child class i have
>> functions GetParam() and SetParam().
>> In the cpp-file I call GetParam() function, but I fell to
On 3/6/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/6/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, I use multiple inheritance in my project. In the child class i have
>> functions GetParam() and SetParam().
>> In the cpp-file I call GetParam() function, but I fell to S
> Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
> C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
> c99 constructs?
> Or all gcc code should be built like this??
This is a feature. gcc can be bootstrapped using an arbitrary c90 compiler.
The warning
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
> myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
> It's using these flags by default:
> -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 3/6/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I use multiple inheritance in my project. In the child class i have
functions GetParam() and SetParam().
In the cpp-file I call GetParam() function, but I fell to SetParam()
function.
Can You help me?
Don't take me wron
Hi,
I try from time to time to find some information related GNU's C++ STL
implemention e.g. in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/latest-doxygen/classstd_1_1basic__string.html
But this page (and others) are nearly unreadable because there is no way
to recognise member function declarations
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into h
On 3/6/07, W. Ivanov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, I use multiple inheritance in my project. In the child class i have
functions GetParam() and SetParam().
In the cpp-file I call GetParam() function, but I fell to SetParam()
function.
Can You help me?
Don't take me wrong but it is most likely
Hi, I use multiple inheritance in my project. In the child class i have
functions GetParam() and SetParam().
In the cpp-file I call GetParam() function, but I fell to SetParam()
function.
Can You help me?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote on 03/06/07 09:49:
> "Vladimir Sysoev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Bug has been already reported
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31037
>
> I don't think this one could have anything to do with my VRP changes,
> but I'll try to take a look later today.
>
"Vladimir Sysoev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bug has been already reported
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31037
I don't think this one could have anything to do with my VRP changes,
but I'll try to take a look later today.
Ian
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into head/gcc/Makefile.in but it seem quite
cluttered and I
I was working on a a patch for PR 21596, and it seems to have triggered
a bug in fwprop on x86 in mainline.
The testcase is simple:
register int *reg __asm__("%edi");
int test () { return *--reg <= 0; }
I've attached the patch for TER which changes the tree produced in
mainline from:
re
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The new subreg lowering pass seems to generate a bit worse code on m68k
> than before, let's take simple example:
FWIW
I see the opposite on i386: I have a function that strangely ran
slower with -fomit-frame-pointer than without on 4.1. With a 4.3
s
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Reload has now to match (reg %d0) and (reg 38) above in insn 32 and after
> pseudo register replacement it looks like this:
>
> (insn 32 10 30 2 (parallel [
> (set (strict_low_part (reg:SI 1 %d1 [orig:38+4 ] [38]))
> (mult:S
Hi,
On Tue, 6 Mar 2007, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00128.html, you wrote:
> > One case is about multiple increments, the tree optimizer merges them and
> > increments the register only once, so if one only looks at the size of the
> > pointer value one misses
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Yes, it is in general better now to split double-word length
> > operations before reload. It's not necessarily better to split as
> > early as possible, as that will essentially disable the RTL level loop
> > optimizations.
>
> I was worried abo
Hello,
"Zuxy Meng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> дÈëÏûÏ¢ÐÂÎÅ:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I saw the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-08/msg00281.html but is
>it
> available for other hosts, like mingw32?
I've uploaded a proposed patch for this bug
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13151&action
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00128.html, you wrote:
> One case is about multiple increments, the tree optimizer merges them and
> increments the register only once, so if one only looks at the size of the
> pointer value one misses them, e.g. something like this:
>
> (set (mem (reg
FYI
Bug has been already reported
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31037
-Vladimir
41 matches
Mail list logo
