Snapshot gcc-4.4-20101102 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20101102/
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
Steve Ellcey writes:
> I tried creating a proc 'check_effective_target_mempcpy'
> in gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp and using
>
> /* { dg-require-effective-target mempcpy } */
>
> on the test, but that did not work. It appears that the
> gcc.c-torture/execute (and compile?) tests do not
I was looking at a failure on IA64 HP-UX with the test
gcc.c-torture/execute/pr45636.c. When compiled with -Os
the call to mempcpy is not inlined and the test fails to
compile because HP-UX does not have a mempcpy function.
I tried creating a proc 'check_effective_target_mempcpy'
in gcc/testsuit
"Joseph S. Myers" writes:
> On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> affect other languages. The only thing I hope to clean up further
>> before the merge is additional separation between the Go frontend proper
>> and the gcc-specific interface. I'm not going to have time to do the
>>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:46 PM, eric lin wrote:
>
> Dear gcc/g++ programers:
>
> that is in the book "Programming-Principle and practice using C++" 4th Ed.,
> Chapter 12, display model
> I can not compile first example chapter.12.3
> or simplest chapter.12.7.2
> by fltk 1.1.10
Dear gcc/g++ programers:
that is in the book "Programming-Principle and practice using C++" 4th Ed.,
Chapter 12, display model
I can not compile first example chapter.12.3
or simplestchapter.12.7.2
by fltk 1.1.10 or 1.3 or 2.0
they all show name ambiguous "Window", since it
On 10-11-02 15:21 , Diego Novillo wrote:
This saves on average ~15% of compilation time on C++. PTH
images are factored, so a change in one file does require
s/does/does not/
Thanks stevenb.
Diego.
We have created a new branch for the incremental parsing work
that Lawrence and I described at the last GCC Summit
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/summit2010?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=IncrementalCompiler.pdf).
To get the branch:
$ svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/pph
The purpose of t
The current definition of TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES on the SPARC is:
static bool
sparc_promote_prototypes (const_tree fntype ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
{
return TARGET_ARCH32 ? true : false;
}
As Jorge pointed out, in 32-bit mode this generates extensions of the argument
registers in the callee that a
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
http://gcc.gnu.o
Nov 2, 2010 01:23:28 PM, jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
http://gcc.gnu.o
On 2 November 2010 15:13, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>
> It would be great if you all could update
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the great
> work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html would make more sense!
It'll be very happy to do that; I like writing documentation.
But yesterday night I was playing with testcases for @property from the Apple
llvm-gcc compiler and realized a number of problems in our implementation. I
want
to fix these first as some of them are major bugs and I want to fix them e
On 11/02/2010 03:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression t
On 11/02/10 09:35, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files
Jeff> (the names escape me) and the rather poor coarse level parallelism
Jeff> (can't build the 32bit and 64bit multilibs in parallel for example).
J
> "Laurent" == Laurent GUERBY writes:
Laurent> Let's imagine we have a reliable tool on a distributed build
Laurent> farm that accepts set of patches (via mail and web with some
Laurent> authentification) and does automatic regression testing and
Laurent> report on selected platform.
Can we
> "Jeff" == Jeff Law writes:
Jeff> Building libjava (at least for me) is primarily painful due to 2 files
Jeff> (the names escape me) and the rather poor coarse level parallelism
Jeff> (can't build the 32bit and 64bit multilibs in parallel for example).
Jeff> Has anyone looked at fixing the
Nicola, Iain, Mike,
It would be great if you all could update
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/cxx0x_status.html and related with all the
great work that has gone into Objective-C++ recently.
Those of us hoping to play with the new Objective-C want to know. ;-)
Thank you,
Ed
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
Can you give us some examples of useful combine-split patterns?
sh.md:
;; combiner splitter for test-and-branch on single bit in register. This
;; is endian dependent because the non-paradoxical subreg looks different
;; on big endian.
(define_split
[(set (pc)
On 30 October 2010 05:45, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Mohamed Shafi :
>
>> On 29 October 2010 00:06, Joern Rennecke
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Mohamed Shafi :
>>>
Hi,
I am doing a port in GCC 4.5.1. For the port
1. there is only (reg + offset) addressing mode only when
Joern Rennecke writes:
> Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
>
>> That said, this is not a very interesting use of splits these days and
>> it could probably be removed without doing any noticeable harm. These
>> days most people just write the complex pattern using define_insn, and
>> then write a defin
Laurent GUERBY writes:
> Let's imagine we have a reliable tool on a distributed build farm that
> accepts set of patches (via mail and web with some authentification) and
> does automatic regression testing and report on selected platform.
>
> This would enable more ambitious in our testing requi
Nick Clifton writes:
> Right - this decision has been made. We are not going to include
> zlib the in the binutils sources.
>
> Thanks for suggesting the idea and working on the patch, but in the
> end it was just not a path we wanted to go down.
I think the next decision is whether to requ
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
That said, this is not a very interesting use of splits these days and
it could probably be removed without doing any noticeable harm. These
days most people just write the complex pattern using define_insn, and
then write a define_split (or a define_insn_and_split) w
On 11/02/2010 12:36 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
define_insn_and_split is little more than syntactic sugar to avoid
re-typing the same patterns again.
Yes, on the other hand it was introduced as combiner-splitter patterns
fell out of fashion, substantially replaced by what you call combiner
bri
Quoting Paolo Bonzini :
On 11/02/2010 10:41 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
What I do not understand is*why* this works.
The internals "16.16 How to Split Instructions" mention two flavours of insn
splitting: One after reload for the scheduler and one during
combine stage, the
latter just doing single
On 11/02/2010 11:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/01/2010 07:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom Tromey writes:
Ian> This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well
go in
Ian> gcc. Anybody want to make an argument one way or another?
Ian> +extern const char *
Ian> +objfile_at
On 11/02/2010 10:48 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> Quoting Geert Bosch :
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end pa
On 11/01/2010 07:17 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tom Tromey writes:
"Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Ian> This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well go in
Ian> gcc. Anybody want to make an argument one way or another?
Ian> +extern const char *
Ian> +objfile_attri
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Hongtao wrote:
> On 11/01/10 20:35, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 19:57, Hongtao wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural
>>> analysis were performed on each source file separately. For exampl
On 11/01/2010 11:47 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression testing?
No, the language will only be built
On 10/31/2010 08:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I assume that the reason we do that for intl is because it has complex
interactions with the rest of the C library, so using the wrong intl
library will cause confusing behaviour when the LC_ environment
variables are set. That case does not arise
On 11/02/2010 11:39 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
On 11/02/2010 10:41 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
What I do not understand is*why* this works.
The internals "16.16 How to Split Instructions" mention two flavours
of insn
splitting: One after reload for the scheduler and one during combin
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
> On 11/02/2010 10:41 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
>> What I do not understand is*why* this works.
>> The internals "16.16 How to Split Instructions" mention two flavours
>> of insn
>> splitting: One after reload for the scheduler and one during combine
>> stage, the
>> latter just
On 11/02/2010 10:41 AM, Georg Lay wrote:
What I do not understand is*why* this works.
The internals "16.16 How to Split Instructions" mention two flavours of insn
splitting: One after reload for the scheduler and one during combine stage, the
latter just doing single_set --> 2 * single_set spli
On Mon, 2010-11-01 at 08:59 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/31/2010 07:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > This patch should not of course change whether or not distros choose to
> > package the Java compiler; undoubtedly they would continue to do so,
> > just as they package the Ada compiler
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
> On 10/29/2010 06:18 PM, Georg Lay wrote:
>> (define_split
>>[(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "")
>> (and:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "")
>> (match_operand:SI 2 "const_int_operand" "")))
>> (clobber (ma
Paolo Bonzini schrieb:
>> I already had to fix IRA and remove the following part of
>> ira-color.c::assign_hard_reg() because it makes assumptions that do
>> not hold for the machine:
>>
>>if (! allocated_hardreg_p[hard_regno]
>> && ira_hard_reg_not_in_set_p (hard_regno, mode, call_us
> I'd personally prefer java over ada as I'm able to understand java code
> easier, thus when something does go wrong I'm able to debug it much faster.
If this can make any difference: even if Ada is enabled by default, we (I at
least) will still be there to analyze hard-to-debug problems exposed
Hi H.J.
Right - this decision has been made. We are not going to include
zlib the in the binutils sources.
Thanks for suggesting the idea and working on the patch, but in the
end it was just not a path we wanted to go down.
Cheers
Nick Clifton
40 matches
Mail list logo
