I'm writing to report a discrepancy in
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
I just discovered that if gmp is boot strapped during gcc build and an older m4
exists, when gmp calls flex, it will fail during configure with:
checking for flex... flex
checking lex output file root... config
NightStrike wrote:
>> If anyone would like to volunteer to set up a channel and/or moderate
>> the chat itself, please let me know.
> Can you just do it in #gcc on oftc?
That's certainly the fallback possibility. Though, for those not
interested, it would interrupt whatever else is being disc
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Several people have asked that there be a forum for asking questions of
> and providing feedback to the GCC RMs. Since this is of course a very
> widely distributed community, the best medium for this seems to be an
> IRC chat. To that end
Several people have asked that there be a forum for asking questions of
and providing feedback to the GCC RMs. Since this is of course a very
widely distributed community, the best medium for this seems to be an
IRC chat. To that end, I'll be hosting a 1-hour session on May 27th at
9:00 AM Pacifi
Ian Lance Taylor google.com> writes:
> Joshua Haberman gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I have a case where I think useless stores are being generated, but I
> > want to be sure before I file a bug. This is with gcc 4.4.3 on Ubuntu
> > 10.04, x86-64.
>
> I concur that this is a missed optimization b
Eggenmüller Bernd writes:
> how can I disallow the mov operation for a register class.
> Can someone help me?
Please do not start a new thread by replying to an existing message.
That hides your message for all of us who use threaded e-mail readers.
If there is some mode which can be stored in
Joshua Haberman writes:
> I have a case where I think useless stores are being generated, but I
> want to be sure before I file a bug. This is with gcc 4.4.3 on Ubuntu
> 10.04, x86-64.
I concur that this is a missed optimization bug.
Ian
On 05/18/2010 05:53 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 5/18/10, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
Hi,
A couple of days ago i was asking:
does any frontend support some sort of noting that a user-header was
included but no decl of it was ever referenced (i.e. superfluous
#include) ?
I could not f
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100518 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100518/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 5/18/10, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A couple of days ago i was asking:
> does any frontend support some sort of noting that a user-header was
> included but no decl of it was ever referenced (i.e. superfluous
> #include) ?
>
> I could not find an appropriate tool to diagnose them
Hi,
A couple of days ago i was asking:
does any frontend support some sort of noting that a user-header was
included but no decl of it was ever referenced (i.e. superfluous
#include) ?
I could not find an appropriate tool to diagnose them, so i was thinking
about a gcc plugin to do that.
Would s
Hi all,
how can I disallow the mov operation for a register class.
Can someone help me?
Thanks,
Egge
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Jon Beniston wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible to update the multilib combinations supported by GCC after it
> has been built? (I would like to build some libraries optimised for
> different CPUs variants, that aren't built by default).
>
> I tried doing this via a specs file,
On 05/18/2010 01:11 PM, packet wrote:
How do i build gcc for linux?
Oh the irony of the subject.
This is better asked on the gcc-help mailing list.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me
How do i build gcc for linux?
I have a case where I think useless stores are being generated, but I
want to be sure before I file a bug. This is with gcc 4.4.3 on Ubuntu
10.04, x86-64.
I have been experimenting with returning structs from functions instead
of passing pointers to "out" parameters. This seems like it should be
"Jon Beniston" writes:
> Is it possible to update the multilib combinations supported by GCC after it
> has been built?
I believe that all the multilib information can be read from the specs
file, so, technically, yes.
> %rename multilib_matches old_multilib_matches
> *multilib_matches:
> mcpu
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 18:30 +0100, Jon Beniston wrote:
> Is it possible to update the multilib combinations supported by GCC after it
> has been built?
I don't know for sure, but I would guess and imagine that it is not
possible. The intuition is that multilib-ness is really a matter of
choosin
Hi,
Is it possible to update the multilib combinations supported by GCC after it
has been built? (I would like to build some libraries optimised for
different CPUs variants, that aren't built by default).
I tried doing this via a specs file, but something like the following fails:
%rename multil
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Yup. This shade of blue can be changed later. Sandi, let's start
> with the S-expression syntax for everything. Richard is correct in
> pointing out that even gimple expressions have metadata associated
> with them that will need to be re
[ apologies for the duplicate message. My previous reply was bounced
by the ML. ]
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:52, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 05/18/2010 04:05 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> > On 18/05/2010 15:17, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> >
>> >> IMHO, ideally we would have a syntax that is human rea
On 05/18/2010 04:05 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 18/05/2010 15:17, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> IMHO, ideally we would have a syntax that is human readable and human
>> writable. S-expressions are not as easy to read for me as something
>> that resembles C.
>
> I'd like it that way too, but I ackno
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> BTW, is it possible today to have a GCC plugin providing a front-end to
> GCC? [last time I looked, I believe the answer is no]
This is one of the reasons for my patches to better hide the
middle-end details from the front ends.
Ciao
On 18/05/2010 15:17, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> IMHO, ideally we would have a syntax that is human readable and human
> writable. S-expressions are not as easy to read for me as something
> that resembles C.
I'd like it that way too, but I acknowledge that it would be more work and
it's not me wh
On 18/05/2010 15:24, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> This however causes an unrecognizable insn error during the compiler
>>> runtime when I have TARGET_X defined.
>>> I was expecting the clobbers not to influence the recognition but it
>>> seems I was
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:59 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:15, Sandeep Soni
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1. What should be the format of representation
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:59 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:15, Sandeep Soni wrote:
> >
> > > 1. What should be the format of representation of the GIMPLE tuples in
> > >text?
> >
> > I liked Andrew's suggesti
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>> This however causes an unrecognizable insn error during the compiler
>> runtime when I have TARGET_X defined.
>> I was expecting the clobbers not to influence the recognition but it
>> seems I was wrong.
>
> Actually, IIUC the clobbers don't
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:59, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>> I don't see how that is much easier to parse compared to
>> i_1 = k_1 + m_1
>> j_1 = func (arg1, arg2)
>
> Well, it would make the parser almost trivial to implement. But you
> have
> [ hmf. This one got lost to an smtp error when I sent it yesterday. It
> appears there's more or less agreement that at the moment you're supposed to
> manually annotate all external entry points if you want to use -fwhole-program
> on a library. On windows, where we often do that anyway, it l
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 09:59, Michael Matz wrote:
> I don't see how that is much easier to parse compared to
> i_1 = k_1 + m_1
> j_1 = func (arg1, arg2)
Well, it would make the parser almost trivial to implement. But you
have a point, the only structurally complex objects we need to parse
ar
On 18/05/2010 13:01, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> I have for call_value a define_expand and define_insn that look like:
> (define_expand "call_value"
> [
> (set (match_operand 0 "" "")
> (call (match_operand:QI 1 "nonmemory_operand" "")
>(match_operand:QI 2 "immediate_oper
Hi,
On Tue, 18 May 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:15, Sandeep Soni wrote:
>
> > 1. What should be the format of representation of the GIMPLE tuples in
> >text?
>
> I liked Andrew's suggestion about S-expressions.
I can see that for describing types, maybe. But i
[ hmf. This one got lost to an smtp error when I sent it yesterday. It
appears there's more or less agreement that at the moment you're supposed to
manually annotate all external entry points if you want to use -fwhole-program
on a library. On windows, where we often do that anyway, it looks lik
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:15, Sandeep Soni wrote:
> 1. What should be the format of representation of the GIMPLE tuples in text?
I liked Andrew's suggestion about S-expressions. It looks like a good
balance between ease of parsing/writing. We can always tweak the
format as we go.
As for poin
Hi,
I have for call_value a define_expand and define_insn that look like:
(define_expand "call_value"
[
(set (match_operand 0 "" "")
(call (match_operand:QI 1 "nonmemory_operand" "")
(match_operand:QI 2 "immediate_operand" "")))
]
""
"")
(define_insn "*call_value"
On 05/18/2010 04:24 AM, Sandeep Soni wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>>For example:
>>>A textual GIMPLE tuple for the statement a=b+c can be like
>>>> (As demonstrated by the internal
>>> manual also).
>>>Is such a representation easy to parse?
>>
37 matches
Mail list logo
