The comments in passes.c at the beginning are identical to toplev.c.
--
此致
敬礼！
梁��
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bo Yang wrote:
>
>> When we produce an exe from a single c++ file, there is no linking
>> need, so there is no problem. But when we separate the definition and
>
> That's not how it works, the linker is always required to
On Thursday 31 July 2008 11:36, Dave Korn wrote:
> Agner Fog wrote on 31 July 2008 07:14:
>
> > Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >> I tend to doubt that odd-byte aligned large memcpys are anywhere
> >> near typical. malloc and mmap both return well-aligned buffers
> >> (say, 8 byte aligned). Static and on-
Thanks, David!
That's a good start. I will need to find places in GCC where these
parameters are used to monitor the behavior of transformations
based on these parameters and be able to change the compiler decisions
through ICI to learn how to tune those costs based on program execution
time/co
> Is there some reason for the inconsistency,
Not really. Patches welcome.
Quite a few files in libiberty use XNEWVEC as a replacement for
malloc(), but the they are being paired with plain free(); XDELVEC is
not being used.
Is there some reason for the inconsistency, such as some transitional
issue, or should this be fixed?
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080731 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080731/
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/branches
Grigori,
Many of the costs now are handled by GCC parameters. See
gcc/params.def accessed in the source code using PARAM_VALUE.
Many other cost models use macros with "COST in their name, such as
TARGET_RTX_COSTS / rtx_cost
BRANCH_COST (and LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT)
MEMORY_M
"ingmar wirths" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I hope you don't consider this as flaming or something, just critics
> to improve this wonderful compiler
> and make hacking easier for people like me without an expert
> understanding of C++.
Thanks for your note. Unfortunately it is too vague for u
Dear All,
We continue developing adaptable GCC (MILEPOST GCC) and we plan to have more
results this fall on selecting good optimization passes and their orders
to improve program execution time, reduce code size and compilation time
across different architectures automatically using statistical
Hello,
i had the following Problem today:
I have a class called GUI, that i included and instantiated.
Today i extended my Code (among other things) with an enum that had an
Element 'GUI'.
I didn't knew that this isn't possible and never even thought about it.
When i tried to compile my Code, i
Hi,
I seem to have bumped into something. I threw away
my svn trunk checkout and did another just in case.
There are no Ada multilib patches in this tree.
I have checked and am pretty sure I have no changes
to anything that is not an RTEMS run-time related file.
I can build a native compiler b
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 18:42 +0200, Daniel Kraft wrote:
> With Ada, however, I'm at least not aware of another compiler I could
> bootstrap using my C compiler and use that one subsequentally to
> bootstrap GNAT. At the moment, I'm trying to bootstrap it using a
> binary GNAT 3.15p which was als
> Well, the point is, I'm using a GNU/Linux system I mainly built from
> scratch, so there's no easy package-installer available for me and I've to
> built everything from source (which is, of course, "my own fault"). My
> system started out with a gcc C compiler, so I could easily bootstrap and
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
For half a year now, I've been working on the GCC Fortran front-end; but
I'm also quite interested in Ada as a language. However, I don't quite
like the idea that one needs a working Ada compiler to bootstrap the Ada
front-end. Well, it's the same with a C compiler to bo
Bo Yang wrote:
> When we produce an exe from a single c++ file, there is no linking
> need, so there is no problem. But when we separate the definition and
That's not how it works, the linker is always required to produce an
executable.
> And Obviously, this is not a linker error, it is the prob
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01305.html
dwarf2out.c (CCing Jason Merrill)
That patch went in a while back, but your message led me to the one that
still needed reviewing. :)
Jason
Jay wrote:
Andrew, Can you explain more why?
Because at some point, no released version worked on intel macs.
And then gmp/configure runs flex.
And then sometimes?always flex tries to run getenv("M4") || "m4".
Yes, Flex uses m4.
gmp/configure probably should not be setting M4
Yes, I thi
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Tomorrow it's a public holiday here, so I wouldn't apply the patch
> before monday anyway.
If the patch is checked in on Monday or Tuesday, that's still fine,
no need to use exceptions.
Jakub
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Paolo,
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53:21PM CEST:
PR35752, which is a P2 regression caused by libtool, is waiting for
approval upstream. Should we make an exception to the usual rules and
apply the fix on the branch?
If by exception to the usu
Hi Paolo,
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53:21PM CEST:
>
> PR35752, which is a P2 regression caused by libtool, is waiting for
> approval upstream. Should we make an exception to the usual rules and
> apply the fix on the branch?
If by exception to the usual rule, you mean
As we are approaching the intended release date of 4.3.2 we need to
address the P1 bugs or downgrade them accordingly. Two of the P1s
have patches posted (more than 3 resp. 2 weeks ago), so they just
need reviewing.
For the record, these are:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-07/msg0072
Priority # Change from Last Report
--- ---
P13 - 5
P2 115 - 2
P32 - 1
--- ---
Total 120 - 8
PR35752, which is a P2 regression
Dave Korn wrote on 31 July 2008 12:45:
> Neal Becker wrote on 31 July 2008 12:42:
>> If it is really intended not to work, then at least
>> documentation should state that.
>
> It does, as was already explained to you; re-read the thread.
Actually I can be more use than that, I'll show you
Neal Becker wrote on 31 July 2008 12:42:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
>> Hi ho, ho!! ;)
>>> It worked with me.
>>>
>> Try a recent gcc (eg, 4.3.x) and you will get the same, actually
>> expected, result of the original poster.
>>
>> Paolo.
>
> I believe this is a bug. I agree that -ffast-math wil
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi ho, ho!! ;)
>> It worked with me.
>>
> Try a recent gcc (eg, 4.3.x) and you will get the same, actually
> expected, result of the original poster.
>
> Paolo.
I believe this is a bug. I agree that -ffast-math will not always comply 100%
with IEEE, as advertised. Bu
Andrew, Can you explain more why?
Why I'm asking again now:
I have found another "problem" because of this (besides the
reduced ability to share config.cache files).
This exacerbates what looks like a minor bug in gmp's configure.
Sometimes, depending on build/host/target, gmp's configure
set
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
>
>> For what it's worth, Bo is my intern in the Google SoC and has traced this
>> back to being a code-generation error (missed stdcall mangling) in the mingw
>> backend. I will work with him to n
Agner Fog wrote on 31 July 2008 07:14:
> Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> I tend to doubt that odd-byte aligned large memcpys are anywhere
>> near typical. malloc and mmap both return well-aligned buffers
>> (say, 8 byte aligned). Static and on-stack objects are also
>> at least word-aligned 99% of the ti
Status
==
The GCC 4.3 branch is open for commits under normal release branch
rules. The 4.3.2 release was expected around 2008-08-06, but as
there are still P1s, it might be delayed a little bit.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from Last Report
---
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to
have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't
know if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with
equal pass->name)?
Yes. To pr
Hi,
When I encounter a FUNCTION_DECL, I want to access the node BIND_EXPR
where I can find the artificial declarations of the current functions
that the compiler adds. Following what the documentation says, I use the
macro DECL_SAVED_TREE which should point to the node BIND_EXPR (used as
follows,
Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
Except as a habit (which I think is a bad one) is there any reason to
have anonymous passes (those with a null pass->name), or (I don't know
if such beast exists) homonym passes (two different passes with equal
pass->name)?
Yes. To prevent
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:11, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello All,
Some middle-end passes (those declared in tree-passes.h) are still
unnamed.
I tend to believe that it would be helpful (mostly for gcc debugging
purposes) that every struct opt_p
Hello All,
Some middle-end passes (those declared in tree-passes.h) are still unnamed.
I tend to believe that it would be helpful (mostly for gcc debugging
purposes) that every struct opt_pass (without exception) should be
uniquely named (and that this should be enforced, eg. in ENABLE_CHECKIN
35 matches
Mail list logo
