Dear Absoft,
Please fix the errors on your web page:
http://www.absoft.com/Absoft_Windows_Compiler.htm
The comparison chart is not only misleading, it is a down
right lie! The last column is labeled "GNU g77 gfortran".
g77 and gfortran are completely different compilers! gfortran
is a Fortran
Timo Kreuzer wrote:
I am working on x64 SEH for ReactOS. The idea is to use .cfi_escape
codes to mark the code positions where the try block starts / ends and
of the except landing pad. The emitted .eh_frame section is parsed after
linking and converted into Windows compatible unwind info / scope
Manuel Lauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:14:27PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Manuel Lauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Admittedly my understanding of mips assembly is not yet very advanced, am
>> >> I
>> >>
> OK.
Thanks, committed.
DJ Delorie wrote:
> How about this?
OK.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713
How about this?
--- gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr36321.c 2008-07-23
00:21:31.0 -0400
+++ ./pr36321.c 2008-11-24 13:46:04.0 -0500
@@ -17,7 +17,9 @@
}
+static char * volatile argp = "pr36321.x";
+
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
- foo (argv[0]);
+ fo
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:27:55PM +0100, Joel Porquet wrote:
> >> And the related reloc symbols are:
> >> 5ffe14b0 0026 R_MIPS_TLS_DTPMOD
> >> 5ffe14b8 0026 R_MIPS_TLS_DTPMOD
>
> Still, is R_MIPS_TLS_DTPMOD a correct symbol ?
> In the document you wrote about NPTL for mips
> (http://www
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> However, I think an even better fix is just to hard-code the string and
>>> make it volatile. Presumably, the use of argv[0] here is just to keep
>>> the compiler from optimizing
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> However, I think an even better fix is just to hard-code the string and
>> make it volatile. Presumably, the use of argv[0] here is just to keep
>> the compiler from optimizing the program away. So, I suggest doing
>> somethi
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 12:23, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>> It currently is broken on many platforms. Why not remove it now? What is
>> the purpose of keeping a pass that does not work correctly and developers
>> cannot use?
>
> I agree with David.
Works
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I think an even better fix is just to hard-code the string and
> make it volatile. Presumably, the use of argv[0] here is just to keep
> the compiler from optimizing the program away. So, I suggest doing
> something like:
>
> volatile char *
Paul Brook wrote:
> foo (argv[0]);
> I'd say it's a broken test then.
It's a broken program, in full generality.
DJ, you could fix this either by checking argc != 0 in the test, or by
adding an effective-target condition that the test be run only on
targets that pass argv[0]. I think t
David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This option has been problematic and does not seem to be well
>> maintained. In terms of usefulness, it would also be worth
>> implementing as a gimple pass, ideally in IPA mode. I propose that we
2008/11/21 Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No, there's nothing wrong with this. You can even use multiple models
> in the same executable for the same symbol. The linker will take care
> of everything necessary.
>
> For instance, the executable's TLS block is at a fixed offset from the
>
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:59:03AM +, IainS wrote:
> Hello Jack,
> On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:35, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 03:57:15PM +, IainS wrote:
>>> When 'make checking', I conventionally move the built libgcc_s.
>>> 1.dylib
>>> and libgcc_s.10.4.dylib to one side p
Hello Richard,
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 05:14:27PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Manuel Lauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Admittedly my understanding of mips assembly is not yet very advanced, am I
> >> missing something or is this a bug?
>
Hello Jack,
On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:35, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 03:57:15PM +, IainS wrote:
When 'make checking', I conventionally move the built libgcc_s.
1.dylib
and libgcc_s.10.4.dylib to one side prior to testing (so that the
Apple-supplied system version is used).
__
îÅÖÎÙÊ ÑÚÙÞÏË ÌÁÓËÁÅÔ ËÉÓËÕ
http://www.calculi15093.chat.ru
18 matches
Mail list logo
