Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters [PATCH]

2008-10-11 Thread Tobias Grosser
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 23:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Richard Guenther > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Note that we cannot really remove switches from the user, but we have to

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters [PATCH]

2008-10-11 Thread Tobias Grosser
On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 23:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Richard Guenther > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Note that we cannot really remove switches from the user, but we have to

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters

2008-10-11 Thread Tobias Grosser
Hi, On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 23:31 +0200, Albert Cohen wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote > > Hi graphities, > > > > graphite consists of four flags "-floop-block", "-floop-interchange", > > "-floop-stripmine" and "-fgraphite". > > > > If any of these flags is set, we enable the graphite pass and we sea

Re: install path in libgcc Makefile.in

2008-10-11 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 03:13:47AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote: > On 00:06 Sat 11 Oct , Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > If this is ok, I will post a little patch. > > > > That sounds fine, but the whole process is trouble. > > Would you explain why it is trouble? Thanks! For instance, libgcc and li

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters

2008-10-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Richard Guenther > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note that we cannot really remove switches from the user, but we have to at >> least keep them as no-op for backward compatibility. Which i

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters

2008-10-11 Thread Sebastian Pop
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that we cannot really remove switches from the user, but we have to at > least keep them as no-op for backward compatibility. Which is why I would > like you to think twice at least as to what options you want to a

Re: install path in libgcc Makefile.in

2008-10-11 Thread Zhang Le
On 00:06 Sat 11 Oct , Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > If this is ok, I will post a little patch. > > That sounds fine, but the whole process is trouble. Would you explain why it is trouble? Thanks! The patch is included. Zhang Le diff --git a/libgcc/ChangeLog b/libgcc/ChangeLog index 5fc628b..

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters

2008-10-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Albert Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tobias Grosser wrote >> >> Hi graphities, >> >> graphite consists of four flags "-floop-block", "-floop-interchange", >> "-floop-stripmine" and "-fgraphite". >> >> If any of these flags is set, we enable the graphite pass a

Re: [graphite] Cleanup of command line parameters

2008-10-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Tobias Grosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 20:35 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> 2008/10/10 Tobias Grosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > >> > Now: >> > >> > >> > -fgraphite: Do nothing. >> > -floop-block, -floop-interchange, -floop-stri

dhiraj chi-yao jasho

2008-10-11 Thread cal chen
haibo eladio dave

Re: gcc moving memory reference across call

2008-10-11 Thread Andrew Haley
Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Richard Guenther wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have some broken code, compiled from Java source. It looks like: D.8