> Re-update and build again, should work now I think.
Yes, the problem is now fixed, thanks.
Dominique
That is consistent with misunderstanding what is in Make.out.log.txt
and Make.error.log.txt.
In that make errors would appear in the same file as GCJ errors how do
you imagine that confusing the two would make any difference? I would
either have no error or both if GCJ had given an error. Grante
JoseD wrote:
> Hi. Just wanted to share that the following macro gives an error on latest
> versions of GCC, but is reported to work on 2.95.3 (tested on MorphOS but
> should be the same for other OSses of course).
> Both an old version of SASC(AmigaOS) and Borland (on X86) worked fine.
>
> #inclu
Hi Richard ,Paul
This is the wrong list for these sorts of questions, you should really
be asking on gcc-help.
The project I am working on require changes to be made in the gcc
backend(probably front end too for complete solution).so I thought
best to discuss it with developers.
Is there so
Hi people
I want to talk an interesting topic of GCC hierarchy of subhierarchies.
By example, i want to add my personal option of optimization to GCC
but I see that it's very "monolithic".
I don't see the subhierarchy of optimation stage in the snapshot tree.
Sincerely yours, J.C. Pizarro
On Mar 30, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
../../gcc-4.3-20070331/libcpp/directives.c:2086: error: pointer
targets in initialization differ in signedness
Re-update and build again, should work now I think.
Building gcc4-4.3.0-20070331 fails on PPC Darwin7 with:
...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.3.0-20070331/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.3.0-20070331/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/sw/lib/gcc4/powerpc-apple-darwin7/bin/ -I../../gcc-4.3-20070331/libcpp -I.
-I../../gcc-4.3-2007
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Null Heart wrote:
... No file failed.
You've not read the output correctly. The file named by make failed,
that file named is gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F.lo.
GCJ did not give an error.
That then is a bug is gcj, a failed compile should produce
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070330 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070330/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Diego> This patch bootstraps all default languages. I'll test Ada later on,
Diego> but I need input from all the FE folks.
I don't think this should hurt gcj. I don't think we test
TREE_ADDRESSABLE for anything important.
Rebuilding li
On 3/30/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Null Heart wrote:
> I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun
Two thoughts come to mind. First, qualify your system with a known
to build, known to be good compiler. Build it 20 times, if it never
f
Hi,
I'm using g++ 4.1.1 under Fedora Core 5 in an X86 system.
I read the GCC manual and it says -Wall includes the -Wswitch-enum
and -Wswitch-default warnings. But I had to supply these command
line options explicitly before the warnings are generated. Is the
manual wrong or is there a bug in g
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Null Heart wrote:
I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun
Two thoughts come to mind. First, qualify your system with a known
to build, known to be good compiler. Build it 20 times, if it never
fails to build, you probably have a good system.
> > But how is it "supposed to mark the variable as addressable"? If this
> > just means setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE, what's the point of having the hook?
>
> It also issues language specific warnings
Then one suggestion is that we rename the langhook to "warn_addressable" and
set TREE_ADDRESSABLE
You could just remove the '##'.
Soma
On 3/30/07, JoseD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi. Just wanted to share that the following macro gives an error on latest
versions of GCC, but is reported to work on 2.95.3 (tested on MorphOS but
should be the same for other OSses of course).
Both an old vers
Hi. Just wanted to share that the following macro gives an error on latest
versions of GCC, but is reported to work on 2.95.3 (tested on MorphOS but
should be the same for other OSses of course).
Both an old version of SASC(AmigaOS) and Borland (on X86) worked fine.
#include
#define EXTRACTBRCKT
On 3/30/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The lang hook is supposed to mark the variable as addressable.
> The lang hook should not be changing other things that have an affect
> on the *middle end*. No exceptions.
But how is it "supposed to mark the variable as addressable"? If
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Joe Buck
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:02 PM
> To: Andrew Pinski
> Cc: Florian Weimer; Steven Bosscher; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Building mainline and 4.2 on Debian/amd64
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 20
> The lang hook is supposed to mark the variable as addressable.
> The lang hook should not be changing other things that have an affect
> on the *middle end*. No exceptions.
But how is it "supposed to mark the variable as addressable"? If this
just means setting TREE_ADDRESSABLE, what's the poi
On 3/30/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The aliaser is fairly aggressive at removing TREE_ADDRESSABLE from
> variables that do not need it anymore, so that should not be a problem.
Yes, but you're calling the lang hook, which in theory, is allowed
to do all sorts of different thi
I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun when I came
across a huge problem: the make would fail without reason. It wouldn't
give any actual reason at all. It would be building the HTML parser
and after a bit would just give up. make gave the error "[error 1]"
about the target file
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Sergio Giro wrote:
The errors mentioned are compile errors,
So, you want a strict subset of the language standard. This is best
done with something like -fstatic-exception-specifications or maybe -
Wexception-specifications -Werror. If you wanted finer control
On 3/30/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
? Just what did you want that isn't in the standard again? Is the
feature you want just static checking for exception specifications at
compile time?
Yes, it is. Please read "compile time" when it says "runtime". The
errors mentioned are compi
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:24 AM, albino aiello wrote:
i must add a new pass to gcc. I want to receive from command line
an integer value at compilation time. I have modify the file
common.opt but tha value of the variable is alwais 0.
I have add the following row:
my-variable=
Common Var (my_
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Sergio Giro wrote:
int TheClass::exceptMethod() _throw TheException {
throw TheException();
}
In this case, the gcc would check at runtime that the only exception
the method exceptMethod may throw is TheException.
It does.
Moreover
int TheClass::wrongMethod()
Hi all,
i must add a new pass to gcc. I want to receive from command line an
integer value at compilation time. I have modify the file common.opt but
tha value of the variable is alwais 0.
I have add the following row:
my-variable=
Common Var (my_variable)init(-1).
Comments
I want to obtain
> The aliaser is fairly aggressive at removing TREE_ADDRESSABLE from
> variables that do not need it anymore, so that should not be a problem.
Yes, but you're calling the lang hook, which in theory, is allowed
to do all sorts of different things. How do those get undone when we find
*they* aren't
Richard Kenner wrote on 03/30/07 13:45:
> One concern I have in marking a DECL addressable that early on is that
> it may stay "stuck" even if the ADDR_EXPR is later eliminated. This can
> be common in inlined situations, I thought.
The aliaser is fairly aggressive at removing TREE_ADDRESSABLE f
Dear,
I felt a bit disappointed while learning about the throw qualifier.
I think a more useful qualifier can be created in order to describe
the possible exceptions a method can throw, in the following way:
int TheClass::exceptMethod() _throw TheException {
throw TheException();
}
In this c
> One thing that I'm wondering about this patch is why hasn't this been
> done before? We seem to purposely separate TREE_ADDRESSABLE from
> ADDR_EXPR. Perhaps to prevent pessimistic assumptions? The current
> aliasing code removes addressability when it can prove otherwise.
One concern I have
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I agree, but what is happening now is that "no newline at end of file"
> is an error even when -pedantic is not specified. I don't think that
> is acceptable.
I completely agree.
The convention in the C++ front end is to say:
if (pedantic)
pedwarn (...);
for th
On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Aurélien Benoit-Lévy wrote:
Do you have any idea of what went wrong and any idea of what should
I do ?
Hum, I'd be tempted to say, try a gcc-4.2 snapshot. If it doesn't
work, we'll fix it for you. :-)
Diego Novillo wrote on 03/30/07 13:21:
> This patch bootstraps all default languages. I'll test Ada later on,
> but I need input from all the FE folks.
Sigh. I forgot to include Mark's suggestion in the patch. With this
patch, calling build_address in dfs_accumulate_vtbl_inits is not
strictly
Mark Mitchell wrote on 03/30/07 12:22:
> So, I think the right fix is (a) the change above, (b) remove the
> TREE_ADDRESSABLE setting from mark_vtable_entries (possibly replacing it
> with an assert.)
After removing the papering over TREE_ADDRESSABLE we were doing in the
aliaser, I found that oth
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 3/30/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I want to insert functions calls during a new pass.
>
> Which version of GCC?
> The problem is to
>> create parameters. At this
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 01:59:12PM +0100, Thomas Gill wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> I maintain a GCC port for a small 16 bit processor called XAP2+. I'm
> having problems with strings of wide characters.
>
> I have the following defines, among others:
>
> #define BITS_PER_UNIT 16
> ...
> #
out_make is the output of the make. In fact it is the output of the
make launch a second time. (To big otherwise.)
Yes, but it's missing the standard error file. Please use:
make > out_make 2> err_make
or something similar.
FX
Diego Novillo wrote:
> This one seems to be a bug in the C++ FE, compounded by alias analysis
> papering over the issue.
Doh! Thank you for tracking this down.
> Mark, does this look OK? (not tested yet)
>
> Index: cp/class.c
> =
Hi FX, Hi all
Thanks for the binairies. I wanted to install it from sources but I
used the binairies. And I think i found a bug : the binairy fails if
the directory /usr/local/bin doesn't exist.
As you've requested, here are 2 files.
out_conf is the output of the configure
out_make is the ou
Diego Novillo wrote:
Interestingly enough, mark_addressable refuses to mark the label as
addressable, but we need the label addressable so that it's processed
properly by the compute_may_aliases machinery.
Given that we need to be very consistent about addressability marking in
the FEs, wouldn't
Jason Merrill wrote on 03/30/07 11:45:
> Looks fine to me. Many places in the front end use build_address rather
> than build1 (ADDR_EXPR) to avoid this issue.
Yeah, I found other cases in Java and in c-*.c. In one case, we are
building the address of a LABEL_DECL for a computed goto
(finish_l
> There are a lot of us that are happy to devote time and people
> resources to helping you with this (both design and implementation),
> so if you feel like you don't have time to go look at other IR's or
> something, please let us help :)
That would be great, especially the bit about looking at
> I think something like
>
> struct gimple_statment_base
> {
> enum gimple_stmt_code code : 8;
> unsigned int subcode : 24;
> source_locus locus;
> tree block;
Just jumping late into the debug info discussion, RTL locators are
combining TREE blocks and source_locuses into sing
On 3/29/07, Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After doing the GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT work, I've come to the conlusion that
to continue overloading trees will be more work in the long run than doing the
actual separation between tuples and trees. This business of "this is
a tree, but not real
Diego Novillo wrote:
I traced the problem back to the building of vtables. I'm simply
calling cxx_mark_addressable after building the ADDR_EXPR (I'm wondering
if building ADDR_EXPR shouldn't just call langhooks.mark_addressable).
Looks fine to me. Many places in the front end use build_addres
On 29 Mar 2007 18:24:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
There are a number of other compilers with successful IR
implementations, and some of them are open source, such as LLVM or
Open64. Since you are essentially proposing a new IR,
Hi Aurélien,
A few remarks:
1. you don't show us the actual compilation error message: why is
make failing?
2. maybe you don't know, but there are binaries available from
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GFortranBinaries, if that helps.
3. you should definitely quote the system compiler and cctools
ver
Hi there,
I am trying to install gfortran from the sources on my computer but I
doesn't work.
My computer is an Apple's MacBook Pro with an Intel CPU.
The sources I use are gcc-4.1.2 and i just want to install gfortran.
The configure I use is :
./configure --prefix=$HOME/.../gcc412 --with-gm
> I am working on Shared flat file support for uClinux (No MMU ARM ).The
> gcc version
> I am using is 2.95 and 3.4.0.Theory of operation is similar to that
You really need to be using the latest gcc (ie. svn trunk, aka 4.3) before we
can help you.
gcc also has a uclinux target. You should be us
Mark Mitchell wrote on 03/22/07 22:10:
> PR 29585 (Novillo): ICE-on-valid
This one seems to be a bug in the C++ FE, compounded by alias analysis
papering over the issue. We are failing to mark DECLs in vtbl
initializers as addressable. This causes the failure during aliasing
because it is added
Hi there,
I maintain a GCC port for a small 16 bit processor called XAP2+. I'm
having problems with strings of wide characters.
I have the following defines, among others:
#define BITS_PER_UNIT 16
...
#define WCHAR_TYPE "int"
#define WCHAR_TYPE_SIZE 16
So, I'm ex
On Fri, 2007-03-30 at 17:57 +0530, vivek tyagi wrote:
> Hi ,
>
This is the wrong list for these sorts of questions, you should really
be asking on gcc-help.
> I am working on Shared flat file support for uClinux (No MMU ARM ).The
> gcc version
> I am using is 2.95 and 3.4.0.Theory of operation i
On 3/30/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 3/27/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I want to insert functions calls during a new pass.
>
> Which version of GCC?
> The problem is to
>> create parameters. At this time, I successfully
On 3/29/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 06:40:30PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2007 18:24:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Why will expressions have location? It seems to me preferable to save
> >the memory. After a fe
Hi ,
I am working on Shared flat file support for uClinux (No MMU ARM ).The
gcc version
I am using is 2.95 and 3.4.0.Theory of operation is similar to that
implemented for m68k.One of the major requirement is to call functions
via GOT.
so a code
**c-code**
foo()
{}
main()
{
foo()
On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 09:38:02PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Provided we keep locations on statements, specifically including
> GIMPLE_MODIFY_EXPR, does it really help us to keep locations on
> expressions within statements in optimized code? What could the
> debugger do with that informati
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 3/27/07, Antoine Eiche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear all,
I want to insert functions calls during a new pass.
Which version of GCC?
The problem is to
create parameters. At this time, I successfully create a function call
with two constante as parameter and insert i
Dave Korn wrote:
> Patch prepared, I'll finish writing it up and submit to the newlib list
> later tonight, but first I'm going to have a celebratory beer or two on
> the way home...
I have applied the patch
(http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2007/msg00292.html) an GCC-4.3
(core+gfortran) builds (
58 matches
Mail list logo
