Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100612 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100612/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
David Brown writes:
> Assuming I'm correct here, then perhaps there could be a warning or
> error message that is triggered by breaking the ODR, and which could
> be enabled automatically by the -flto flag. Perhaps existing checking
> mechanisms from C++ can be used here.
It's a good idea but u
Andi Kleen writes:
> But if you need more why can't you just link the whole assembler
> into gcc? That would hopefully speed up compilation too
> (e.g. over time the text generation of instructions could
> be bypassed)
It would help compilation time a little bit, but generating the
assembly code
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Quentin Neill
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> [snip]
>> x86 assembler isn't an optimizing assembler. -mtune only does
>> instruction selection. What you are proposing sounds like an optimizing
>> assembler to me. Are we going to suppor
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 3:32 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> This also means that linking your program with non-LTO+whole-program
>>> code may lead to miscompilations without any warning, which is really
>>> bad. I don't think it is a reas
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
This also means that linking your program with non-LTO+whole-program
code may lead to miscompilations without any warning, which is really
bad. I don't think it is a reasonable limitation and we will get bad
press when programs start breaking
On 12 June 2010 01:27, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 11 June 2010 20:48, Cary Coutant wrote:
But if I understand correctly, mixed LTO/non-LTO + whole-program is
almost never correct. So we should really emit a warning for
Hi,
> i have pushed the patch on "mob"
> Coo: initial last member of union
> Please change my name of patch: U-YUAN\Administrator -> yuanbin
This change broke #include on my Debian Linux.
% ~/wrk/tinycc/tcc math.c
In file included from math.c:1:
In file included from /usr/include/math.h:34:
/us
Quentin Neill writes:
>
> Another option would be to expose some subset of the assembler
> functionality as a plugin to GCC (similar to how gold is used) to
> extract the instruction sizes. Any comments on that approach?
AFAIK gcc already does keep track of instruction lengths
(e.g. for LOOP),
