"GCC 4.4.5 is planned roughly for end of July, unless some severe
issue forces us to release it earlier." -
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg01018.html
Is a 4.4.5 release still planned? When?
thanks,
-Kenny
Hello,
Please forgive my poor english, but it isn't my mother language.
When trying to build gnat from this snapshot, i had an issue at line 280
from gcc/ada/g-socthi-mingw.adb due to:
g-socthi.adb:280:45 value not in range of type "Interfaces.C.unsigned"
g-socthi.adb:280:45 static expressio
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
> > currently is
> > charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
>
> Apple does not have an i
>> It seems the auto-vectorizer could not recognize that this loop will
>> roll at most 3 times.
>> And it will generate quite messy code.
>>
>> int a[1024], b[1024];
>> void foo (int n)
>> {
>> int i;
>> for (i = (n/4)*4; i< n; i++)
>> a[i] = a[i] + b[i];
>> }
>>
>> How can we correctly
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100909 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100909/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Sep 9, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Why don't you upload one of the recent Apple GCC tarballs in a branch on the
> FSF server ?
> ...
> You don't have to do it, but contributing changes back to the original
> project seems to be the right, honourable thing to do, particularly when
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
> is
> charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
Apple does not have an internal process to assign code to the FSF anymore. I
would focus on the c
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> *Until and unless* Apple itself submits the code to the FSF, Apple retains
> the copyright; which means that nobody else has the right to submit it to the
> FSF. (Unless Apple gives /them/ (the hypothetical third party) an assignment
> that allows
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> $ grep optimize_size *.c
> genconditions.c: { "! optimize_size && ! TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE",
> genconditions.c: __builtin_constant_p (! optimize_size && !
> TARGET_READ_MODIFY_WRITE)
> genconditions.c: ? (int) (! optimize_size && ! T
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> $ grep optimize_size *.c
Try egrep "optimize_.*_for_speed|optimize_.*_for_size" * config/*/*
Ciao!
Steven
On 09/09/2010 20:19, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Chris Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting him.
>Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple currently
> is
> charged with maintaining their objc languages
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 08:27:16PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2010,@3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> >> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
> >> to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
> >
> > My take, you'd have to ask eith
On 09/09/2010 12:01, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
>> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications
>> to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
>
> My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither.
> Chris Lattner could prov
Chris
thanks a lot for your answer. That makes sense - I had not realized that most
of the Apple GCC Objective-C / Objective-C++ changes
were already sitting on the FSF servers in an Apple branch :-) Can someone
from the FSF confirm that it's OK to merge code from there ?
I did look at the b
Hello Piotr,
* Piotr Wyderski wrote on Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:24:07PM CEST:
> I'm trying to compile a GCC toolchain with target=arm-elf
> and hosted on Cygwin/PC. Unfortunately, both GCC 4.5.1,
> taken from the official mirror, and 4.6 trunk taken from SVN
> fail to compile with the following err
> Some backends also check optimize_size to change their cost algorithms
> to favor shorter instruction sequences.
But why doesn't it do what the documentation says? -falign-* seems
like an obvious one - aligning labels and such always makes the code
bigger.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Some backends also check optimize_size to change their cost algorithms
> to favor shorter instruction sequences.
Also see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16996 for all the
other known code size improvements that could be done.
DJ Delorie writes:
> But in reality, the only thing -Os does beyond -O2, aside from a few
> niche special cases, is enable inlining, and maybe scheduling, which
> for some cases may be the wrong thing to do.
Some backends also check optimize_size to change their cost algorithms
to favor shorter
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
> GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
> Any legal obstacles ?
>
> If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge these
> modifications, would they be accepte
On 7 September 2010 22:50, James Dennett wrote:
> I suspect we don't want to put a lot of effort into fixing C++0x
> experimental support in GCC 4.4.x.
In general that's correct, but in this case it's already fixed on the
4.4 branch, 4.4.4 doesn't crash.
Nate, It's always worth trying an up-to-da
The docs say...
@item -Os
@opindex Os
Optimize for size. @option{-Os} enables all @option{-O2} optimizations that
do not typically increase code size. It also performs further
optimizations designed to reduce code size.
@option{-Os} disables the following optimization flags:
@gccoptlist{-falig
Hi.
No luck with today's GCC builds - both my x86 and sparc builds
failed this morning.
i386-pc-solaris2.10:
The build failed in 'stage2':
/home/ahaas/gnu/gcc.git/gcc/dwarf2out.c: In function
'get_ref_die_offset_label':/home/ahaas/gnu/gcc.git/gcc/dwarf2out.c:6549:5:
error: format '%lld' expec
> I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
> changes to GCC, moreover I checked
> the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and all the
> copyright notices on all files mention the
> "Free Software Foundation Inc." as the copyright holder.
>
> I guess that
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
> I am studying gcc's points-to analysis right now and encountered a question.
> In paper "Off-line Variable Substitution for Scaling Points-to
> Analysis", section 3.2
> It says that we should not substitute a variable with other if it is
>
Hi,
I am studying gcc's points-to analysis right now and encountered a question.
In paper "Off-line Variable Substitution for Scaling Points-to
Analysis", section 3.2
It says that we should not substitute a variable with other if it is
taken address.
But in GCC's implementation, it units pointer but
On Sep 9, 2010, at 3:11 AM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++ modifications to
> GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
My take, you'd have to ask either the FSF lawyers or Apple, I'm neither. Chris
Lattner could provide an Apple answer, I'd recommend contacting
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
I assume Apple had signed a copyright assignment to the FSF for all
changes to GCC, moreover I checked
the modified GCC source code that Apple distributes and all the
Hello,
I'm trying to compile a GCC toolchain with target=arm-elf
and hosted on Cygwin/PC. Unfortunately, both GCC 4.5.1,
taken from the official mirror, and 4.6 trunk taken from SVN
fail to compile with the following error message:
checking dynamic linker characteristics... no
checking how to har
Arun Khanna would like to add you as a friend on Skoost.
To see some friend photos and find out more, follow the link below:
http://www.skoost.com/?id=50711272_50670809&;
People you may know already using Skoost: Arun Khanna, Debasish Tabla, Info,
Rakesh Saxena, Sitar Indrani, Ved Pal, Shashi Mo
Can we (legally) merge Apple's Objective-C / Objective-C++
modifications to GCC into FSF GCC trunk ?
Any legal obstacles ?
If we start producing patches to the current FSF GCC trunk that merge
these modifications, would they be accepted ?
I think Apple would benefit from merging of their mo
> I don't know if you noticed, but the C++ runtime library started using
> the builtins exclusively in 4.4.0, we exposed a small bug (fixed by
> Richard I think), where the compiler crashed for an integer type
> argument, but otherwise *nobody* complained so far.
Wow, now that's a pretty strong ar
On 09/09/2010 11:43 AM, FX wrote:
> Thus, my question is: Is there any risk in doing so?
>
I don't know if you noticed, but the C++ runtime library started using
the builtins exclusively in 4.4.0, we exposed a small bug (fixed by
Richard I think), where the compiler crashed for an integer type
a
I have a questions regarding GCC C99 built-ins: isfinite, isnan, isnormal,
isinf and signbit.
Currently, libgfortran (which is compiled with -std=c99) has a few configure
tests and target-specific hacks to provide reasonable versions of the macros
above: using the ones in headers if they are p
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> 1) Is this a valid optimization in general to attempt wrt other targets
>> (i.e. prevent replacement across calls)?
>
> I think it makes sense in general.
ISTR we even used to do so in the past...?
>> 2) Is there a way to recognize the
Richard Henderson writes:
> On 09/08/2010 02:25 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> Should I discuss it with someone?
>
> Almost certainly. How about everyone? I would post your progress
> to gcc-patches and ask for comments.
I will try to get something into gcc-patches soon. Thanks.
--
PMatos
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Pat Haugen wrote:
> I'm looking into a case where TER is forward propagating a series of
> additions across a call.
>
> extern void foo(void);
> int bar(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h) {
> int ret;
> ret = a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h;
>
36 matches
Mail list logo
