> Ran the "make -k check" without the -j option,
> after creating a symlink to /usr/local/bin/stty
> (noticed many errors about that)
>
> Is this as good a build as I can expect?
Probably, although the number of libgomp failures is high. You might want to
try with the GNU assembler instead of th
Ran the "make -k check" without the -j option,
after creating a symlink to /usr/local/bin/stty
(noticed many errors about that)
Is this as good a build as I can expect?
Here are the results
(output from config.guess and "gcc -v" are below) :
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected pa
On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 09:26, Toon Moene wrote:
> Does this mean:
>
> You do not support these languages *yet*.
This one.
Supporting new languages is, in principle, very simple. In theory,
there is nothing special to be done. Every FE already generates
gimple and that's what we are writing t
Hi,
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Michael Eager wrote:
> If the LSDA is only interpreted by the personality routine pointed to
> by the unwind table, then all that should be needed is to describe the
> the functionality of that routine.
Yep, that was what my confusion above was about, if the LSDA format
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090517 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090517/
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
Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Michael Eager wrote:
But the _format_ of the LSDA is not specified. It's really an
implementation detail of the compiler/language and doesn't have to be
agreed upon for mixing .o files from different compilers, as every
compilation unit can have
Hi,
On Sun, 17 May 2009, Michael Eager wrote:
> > But the _format_ of the LSDA is not specified. It's really an
> > implementation detail of the compiler/language and doesn't have to be
> > agreed upon for mixing .o files from different compilers, as every
> > compilation unit can have it's o
Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Michael Eager wrote:
Is there any documentation on the contents of .eh_frame
and the augmentations used?
.eh_frame simply contains normal unwinding information, in DWARF2(34)
format, you're familiar with that :)
And nothing more, specifically i
Alex writes:
> In Coldfire RM it says that zero flag is set by asrl if the result is 0,
> so "tstl %d0" is not necessary, right ?
This has been fixed in gcc 4.4.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now
Hi,
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Michael Eager wrote:
> Is there any documentation on the contents of .eh_frame
> and the augmentations used?
.eh_frame simply contains normal unwinding information, in DWARF2(34)
format, you're familiar with that :)
And nothing more, specifically it does _not_ contain
Hi again
> Subject to fixing the bug I think is present with static-only libgcc
> functions and C++ shared libraries (so that being able to link an
> executable with the functions means it is also possible to link libstdc++
> and have the symbols resolved in that link), it would make sense to te
Michael Hope wrote:
* Using a define_insn to mark it as both a destructive xor and
compare in parallel, such as:
When a compare is in a parallel, the compare must be the first
operation. You have it second. This kind of pattern should work. You
can find many examples of it in the sparc.md
Diego Novillo wrote:
On the LTO branch, I am brute-forcing LTO compilation on all the
testsuite directories. This causes many spurious failures because we
are not going to support LTO compiles on everything. For instance,
LTO is not supported for fortran, java, ada, mudflap.
I almost missed
Thanks to everyone, great work
> uname -a
MSYS_NT-5.1 CHRISPC 1.0.11(0.46/3/2) 2008-08-25 23:40 i686 Msys
> gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-mingw32
Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure --with-gcc
--build=i686-pc-mingw32 --prefix=/mingw --with-mpfd=/usrlocal
--with-gmp=/usrlocal
Hi,
If I compile the following code for coldfire:
int foo(int a)
{
if(a >> 3)
return 10;
else
return 100;
}
the output with -O2 or -O3 optimization is:
:
0: 4e56 linkw %fp,#0
4: 202e 0008 movel %fp@(8),%d0
8: e680asrl #3,%d0
a:
Hi there. I'm having trouble figuring out how to represent a
destructive comparison on the port I'm attempting. The ISA is very
simple and accumulator based, so to generate a compare of two
registers you would do:
; Compare R10 and R11, destroying R11 and setting C
LOADACC, R10
XOR, R11
Note t
On Sun, 17 May 2009 09:34:22 +0300 Mikolaj Golub wrote:
MG> The problem is in libgomp/team.c. gomp_thread_start() does gomp_sem_init()
MG> but gomp_sem_destroy() is never called.
Registered in bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40174
--
Mikolaj Golub
17 matches
Mail list logo
