Hi Andi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/03/2008 18:32:35:
>
> I noticed the gcc 4.3.0 changes document on the website does not
> mention that the vectorizer is now on by default in -O3.
> Perhaps that should be added? It seems like an important noteworthy
> change to me.
Thanks for pointing this
On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 01:17:02PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
> >Hi Carlos and Mark,
> >
> >Your "Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix" patch here:
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00280.html
> >
> >appears to have caused a regression in my GCC 4.3 testi
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080310 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080310/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> It builds now.
Thanks for the confirmation, and to H.J. for the fix.
--
Eric Botcazou
Eric Botcazou wrote:
I think something has broken for GNU/Linux x86 in
the past week on the head. It was building fine last
week. Does anyone else see this?
You just need to browse Bugzilla, it's PR tree-opt/35493.
Thanks both of you. It builds now.
--
Eric Botcazou
--joel
> I think something has broken for GNU/Linux x86 in
> the past week on the head. It was building fine last
> week. Does anyone else see this?
You just need to browse Bugzilla, it's PR tree-opt/35493.
--
Eric Botcazou
> This is:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35493
>
> Patch by H.J. Lu to fix the issue was approved but not commited yet:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00466.html
It has been committed now.
--
Eric Botcazou
This is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35493
Patch by H.J. Lu to fix the issue was approved but not commited yet:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00466.html
Laurent
/bin/ -c -g -O2
-fomit-frame-pointer -gnatpg -gnata -nostdinc -I- -I. -Iada
-I../../gcc/gcc/ada ../../gcc/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.4.0 20080310 (experimental) [trunk revision 133080]
(i686-pc-linux-gnu
The deed is done!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35519
I added a patch but it needs more expertise than I have.
-Original Message-
From: Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Andy H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: GCC Development
Sent: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 1:32 pm
Subject: Re: Com
On Mar 10, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> The reason SRA generates more IL is *precisely* to get better
>> optimization. The back-ends don't handle BIT_FIELD_REFs very well.
> So I thought they can do bit-field stores...? no?
"Fran Baena" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/3/10, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Fran Baena wrote:
>> > RTL represents a low-level language, machine-independent. But I didn't
>> > find any especification of such language represented. This is, I found
>> > no document where the language
Andy H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have problem with data flow and combine that is causing ICE with
> experimental build. Despite all efforts to blame my own target
> changes,
> I have reached the conclusion that this is a gcc COMBINE bug, but seek
> your advice before filing a bug report.
Yo
Sorry I'm not going through this now, especially not for such
a trivialty. My past experiences are that it takes several months of pings
to get anything included and I don't have time for that now.
-Andi
2008/3/10, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Fran Baena wrote:
> > RTL represents a low-level language, machine-independent. But I didn't
> > find any especification of such language represented. This is, I found
> > no document where the language represented were described or defined
> > in a
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:33:01AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sorry you lost me. You're saying everybody can change gcc SVN now?
>
> Anyone can submit a patch
Well I'm not going to write it because I for once not
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:28:57PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:11AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 10
Hi Ramana,
> > I have read the documentation and i didn't found where it is
> > described, maybe I searched in wrong place.
>
>
> RTL language definition is in rtl.def and gives the different
> operators and operands. info gccint on a standard linux distribution
> should help you figure out de
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sorry you lost me. You're saying everybody can change gcc SVN now?
Anyone can submit a patch
-- Pinski
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:25:11AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> >
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I noticed the gcc 4.3.0 changes document on the website does not
> >
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 09:58:44AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I noticed the gcc 4.3.0 changes document on the website does not
> > mention that the vectorizer is now on by default in -O3.
> > Perhaps that should be
All,
Developer knowledge of operator precedence and the issue of what
they intended to write are interesting topics. Some experimental
work is described in (binary operators only I'm afraid):
www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/accu06a.pdf
www.knosof.co.uk/cbook/accu07a.pdf
The ACCU 2006 experiment provide
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I noticed the gcc 4.3.0 changes document on the website does not
> mention that the vectorizer is now on by default in -O3.
> Perhaps that should be added? It seems like an important noteworthy
> change to me.
Just like
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
accepted the CR16 port for inclusion in GCC and appointed
Pompapathi Gadad as maintainer for the CRX and CR16 ports. The initial CR16
patch needs approval from a GCC GWP maintainer before it may be committed.
Please join
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
accepted the picoChip port for inclusion in GCC and appointed
Hariharan Sandanagobalane and Daniel Towner as port maintainers.
The initial patch needs approval from a GCC GWP maintainer before it may
be committed.
Please
I noticed the gcc 4.3.0 changes document on the website does not
mention that the vectorizer is now on by default in -O3.
Perhaps that should be added? It seems like an important noteworthy
change to me.
I'm not sure it applies to all architectures, but it applies to
x86 at least.
-Andi
Fran Baena wrote:
RTL represents a low-level language, machine-independent. But I didn't
find any especification of such language represented. This is, I found
no document where the language represented were described or defined
in a grammar way.
RTL isn't a programming language, and hence has
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 14:22, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > extract_ops_from_tree would return GIMPLE_COPY as subcode and
> > the whole expression as op1, where's the problem?
>
> Sorry, I misunderstoo
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 14:22, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> extract_ops_from_tree would return GIMPLE_COPY as subcode and
> the whole expression as op1, where's the problem?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were advocating *against*
GIMPLE_COPY.
> > I need to introduce
On 10/03/2008, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> If you just want to build just gcc and libgcc, not any other target
> >> libraries, do
> >> make all-gcc && make all-target-libgcc
> >>
> > ah great. that should work. can you tell me the equivalent of
> install-gcc,too?
>
>
> m
Hi Fran,
> I have read the documentation and i didn't found where it is
> described, maybe I searched in wrong place.
RTL language definition is in rtl.def and gives the different
operators and operands. info gccint on a standard linux distribution
should help you figure out details about RTL .
Hello all,
I've got the ICE on the gcc.c-torture/compile/2718.c test:
powerpc-linux-gnuspe-gcc -c -O3 -funroll-loops 2718.c
2718.c: In function 'baz':
2718.c:14: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
S
If you just want to build just gcc and libgcc, not any other target
libraries, do
make all-gcc && make all-target-libgcc
ah great. that should work. can you tell me the equivalent of install-gcc,too?
make install-gcc install-target-libgcc
Or, just configure with --disable-libmudflap if it
Hi all,
RTL represents a low-level language, machine-independent. But I didn't
find any especification of such language represented. This is, I found
no document where the language represented were described or defined
in a grammar way. So, I 'd thank you to show me where the RTL-language
is defi
ah great. that should work. can you tell me the equivalent of install-gcc,too?
Thanks.
On 10/03/2008, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:21AM +0100, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> > I gave it a couple more tries and I'm still pretty sure that make
> > all-gcc was the
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:57:21AM +0100, Jonas Meyer wrote:
> I gave it a couple more tries and I'm still pretty sure that make
> all-gcc was the correct way to do it. After all all the toolchain
> creating scripts I looked at like openwrt,buildroot and crosstools do
> it that way.
> make all fail
I gave it a couple more tries and I'm still pretty sure that make
all-gcc was the correct way to do it. After all all the toolchain
creating scripts I looked at like openwrt,buildroot and crosstools do
it that way.
make all fails while configuring libmudflap - telling me the c
compiler couldn't cre
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2008, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> AM33/2.0 and H8SX come to mind, although it's been a while since I
> >> dealt with the memory bit-field operations of these two ports to
39 matches
Mail list logo
