Snapshot gcc-4.4-20120207 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20120207/
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
Since this came up the other day in the "post-reload compare
optimization pass" discussion, I thought better comment on
this old post in case someone is tempted to do something...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Frankly, I'd prefer to flip the default. It does seem to make the most
Mads Jensen writes:
> I realized there were a few errors in the submitted patch, so I'm
> resubmitting it.
Thanks. Translation files are handled by the GNU Translation Project.
Changes to the translations should go through them, to avoid future
confusion.
http://translationproject.org/html/wel
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> Can someone please tell me the entry point function (and stage) where the
> template functions are separated for different data types?
I don't understand your question, but I can tell you that all the C++
template support is in the C++ frontend. It's in the file
Hi,
I'm investigating the following ICE building the Blackfin compiler from trunk:
/home/shender/gnu-upstream/toolchain/gcc-4.7/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c:
In function ÃâËeoshift1Ãââ:
/home/shender/gnu-upstream/toolchain/gcc-4.7/libgfortran/generated/eoshift1_4.c:250:1:
error: unable to f
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>> You then can do
>>
>> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.c -o a.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -flto b.c -o b.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto d.c -o d.o
>> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto e.c -o e.o
>> gcc $OPTI
Richard Guenther writes:
>
> You then can do
>
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.c -o a.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto b.c -o b.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto d.c -o d.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -ffixed-r9 -ffixed-r10 -flto e.c -o e.o
> gcc $OPTIONS -flto a.o b.o -o non-fixed-reg-part.o -r -nostdlib
> gcc
This mailing list is for discussing development *of* gcc, not help
using it. Your question would be appropriate on the
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list, please take any follow-up there, thanks.
On 7 February 2012 13:57, Alexandre Almeida wrote:
>
> It seems to be impossible to define an inline member fun
* Bug 51752 - trans-mem: publication safety violated
I'm working on this.
Let's do an update of the known reported bugs and for trans-mem/libitm.
Thanks to everybody who helped in reporting, fixing, improving and
reviewing trans-mem things.
*Known bugs and eventually fixed in 4.7 or 4.8*
trans-mem:
* Bug 52141 - [trans-mem] ICE due to asm statement in
trans-mem.c:e
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> It's probably to have the SET in some canonical form - the resulting
> I am wondering how the canonical form is maintained, since according
> to the paper:
> For an antileader set, it
It seems to be impossible to define an inline member function externally with
GCC. When attempting to do so, the linker returns an error.
Here is how I attempted to do it:
Header file:
-
class C
{
public:
void foo();
};
CPP file:
-
inline void C::foo()
{
[..
Hi,
Thanks so much, this exactly solves issue. I didn't know about this
option, it seems very useful in such cases.
---
With best regards, Konstantin
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> That is go
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> It's probably to have the SET in some canonical form - the resulting
I am wondering how the canonical form is maintained, since according
to the paper:
For an antileader set, it does not matter which expression represents
a value, as long a
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is good solution, thanks.
>
> But what if I want to compile e.o and d.o with cross-module inlining
> (but also with fixed regs and so, without lto, as you are suggesting)?
> On gcc-4.3.3, I had "combine" option for such ca
Hi,
That is good solution, thanks.
But what if I want to compile e.o and d.o with cross-module inlining
(but also with fixed regs and so, without lto, as you are suggesting)?
On gcc-4.3.3, I had "combine" option for such cases. Is it completely
impossible in gcc 4.6.2?
---
With best regards, Kon
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Konstantin Vladimirov
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
>
> Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
>
> Files a.c and b.c are performance bottlenecks and requires heavy
> cross-module inline, so must be compiled with -flto option
> Fil
Hi,
Consider some project, consisting of files: a.c, b.c, d.c and e.c
Compiler is gcc 4.6.2
Files a.c and b.c are performance bottlenecks and requires heavy
cross-module inline, so must be compiled with -flto option
Files d.c and e.c is preffered to be compiled with lto option too, but
they are
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 09:43, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> These are the average compile times for compiling a file in the set of
>> the 10 files that are slowest (as when compiled with gcc 4.4 using
>> -O2) to compile:
>>
>> gcc 4.4 gcc 4.6 gcc 4.7 clang 3.0 clang 3.1
>> -fs-o -O0
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have been measuring compile times for Chromium using different
> versions of GCC and Clang, and I thought it might be a good idea to
> share the results in case someone else finds them interesting.
>
> Two measurements were co
20 matches
Mail list logo
