pr45055 tests a scheduling fix, but on targets that don't support
scheduling (like m32c-elf), gcc emits a warning that scheduling is not
supported. This warning causes the test to fail. How do we bypass
these types of test cases? I don't see a suitable effective_target
for scheduling.
spawn -i
On Feb 15, 2011, at 2:47 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I am happy to announce that the steering committee has appointed
> Rainer Orth and Mike Stump testsuite maintainers.
Since I'm sure I can't figure out which patches are outstanding, could anyone
waiting on testsuite approvals or reviews (or des
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110215 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110215/
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
I am happy to announce that the steering committee has appointed
Rainer Orth and Mike Stump testsuite maintainers.
This has been an area lacking maintainership for a while and the
two of them volunteering is very much appreciated.
As usual, please adjust the MAINTAINERS file accordingly, and
Happ
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
> > There are four different target configuration headers used for Interix
> > (i386/i386-interix.h i386/i386-interix3.h interix.h interix3.h). Since
> > there's only one Interix target present in GCC, the abstraction implied by
> > four headers - some o
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
* Interix (i[34567]86-*-interix3*) (see PR 47096).
I would appreciate it if you could leave Interix. I'll take the responsibility
to get it working.
The deprecation patch has gone in. That means that
On 02/15/2011 09:32 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB but
less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointer
On 02/15/2011 09:56 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, David Daney wrote:
Current MIPS 32-bit ABIs (both o32 and n32) are restricted to 2GB of
user virtual memory space. This is due the way MIPS32 memory space is
segmented. Only the range from 0..2^31-1 is available. Pointer
values
On Feb 14, 2011, David Daney wrote:
> Current MIPS 32-bit ABIs (both o32 and n32) are restricted to 2GB of
> user virtual memory space. This is due the way MIPS32 memory space is
> segmented. Only the range from 0..2^31-1 is available. Pointer
> values are always sign extended.
> The proposed
On Feb 15, 2011, at 12:41 PM, David Daney wrote:
> ...
>>
>>> The main work would be in the compiler toolchain and runtime libraries.
>>
>> You'd also need to update gas for la and dla expansion.
>>
>
> I am counting gas, ld and libc as part of the 'compiler toolchain'
Don't forget GDB.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
> > * Interix (i[34567]86-*-interix3*) (see PR 47096).
>
> I would appreciate it if you could leave Interix. I'll take the responsibility
> to get it working.
The deprecation patch has gone in. That means that your patch to
On 02/14/2011 07:00 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:50 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 02/14/2011 06:33 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
On Feb 14, 2011, at 6:22 PM, David Daney wrote:
On 02/14/2011 04:15 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
I have to wonder if it's worth the effort. The primary problem
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
> > It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB
> > but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
> >
> > This seems like a microscopic
On 02/15/2011 12:35 AM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> When I was looking at this problem of tail call optimization, I have
> found that _ITM_abortTransaction was not considered as a 'noreturn'
> function. Do you have any reason not doing this? If not, I propose to
> add ECF_NORETURN in calls.c:special_f
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We made lots of progresses on x32 pABI:
>
> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>
> 1. Kernel interface with syscall is close to be finalized.
> 2. GCC x32 branch is stabilizing.
> 3. The Bionic C library works with the syscall kernel in
Dear Richard,
When I was looking at this problem of tail call optimization, I have
found that _ITM_abortTransaction was not considered as a 'noreturn'
function. Do you have any reason not doing this? If not, I propose to
add ECF_NORETURN in calls.c:special_function_p().
Also I just want to p
16 matches
Mail list logo
