Re: GCC and Clang produce undefined references to functions with vague linkage

2012-06-29 Thread John McCall
On Jun 29, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> There's no "for a long time" here. The ABI does not allow us to emit these >> symbols with non-coalescing linkage. We're not going to break ABI >> just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they >> hacked in devirtual

gcc-4.6-20120629 is now available

2012-06-29 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120629 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120629/ 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/branches

Re: LTO inlining of transactional builtins

2012-06-29 Thread Aldy Hernandez
In theory we should be able to do multiple "LTO" passes. So we could do a.c a.o ... -> -> WPA -> LTRANS and TM lowering -> WPA -> LTRANS and RTL expand x.c x.o Thus, after a first wave of WPA and LTRANS in non-lowered TM we can, after the TM lowering in the first LTR

Re: Are we fast yet?

2012-06-29 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > you may have thought I'd disappeared but here I am, after weeks of working on > a small project of mine. What started as a very small hack for visualising > callgrind's profiles is now an -experimental still- website, a GCC version of > mozilla's "a

Re: GCC and Clang produce undefined references to functions with vague linkage

2012-06-29 Thread Rafael Espíndola
> There's no "for a long time" here.  The ABI does not allow us to emit these > symbols with non-coalescing linkage.  We're not going to break ABI > just because people didn't consider a particular code pattern when they > hacked in devirtualization through external v-tables. If we take "the ABI"

Re: [testsuite] don't use lto plugin if it doesn't work

2012-06-29 Thread Mike Stump
On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:19 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Jun 28, 2012, Mike Stump wrote: >> The next would be because it would be a speed hit to re-check at >> runtime the qualities of the linker and do something different. > > But then, our testsuite *does* re-check at runtime, but without my >

Re: GCC and Clang produce undefined references to functions with vague linkage

2012-06-29 Thread John McCall
On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> But that's pervasively true in C++ — the linker has to eliminate duplicates >> all the time. Idiomatic C++ code ends up plunking down hundreds, if >> not thousands, of inline functions in every single translation unit. This is >> already a

Re: GCC and Clang produce undefined references to functions with vague linkage

2012-06-29 Thread Rafael Espíndola
Richi asked me to also report a gcc bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53808 > But that's pervasively true in C++ — the linker has to eliminate duplicates > all the time.  Idiomatic C++ code ends up plunking down hundreds, if > not thousands, of inline functions in every single tran

Online Film

2012-06-29 Thread Film Kutum
Merhaba, online ve ücretsiz olarak film izlemek isterseniz filmkutum.com her an güncellenen içeriğiyle herzaman hizmetinizde.

Re: Add corollary extension

2012-06-29 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:39:16PM -0700, Rick Hodgin wrote: > I've thought more about the syntax, and I see this making more sense: > bool isSystemOpen[!isSystemClosed]; You've just declared an array of bool, whose size is the expression !isSystemClosed. As developers have already showed you ho

gcc@gcc.gnu.org

2012-06-29 Thread Ilya Enkovich
2012/6/29 Richard Guenther : > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I faced a problem with usage of force_gimple_operand function for >> specific tree. I have a TARGET_MEM_REF tree node whose address I want >> to pass as argument to the function call. I use build_f

Re: [onlinedocs]: No more automatic rebuilt?

2012-06-29 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Next problem: libiberty. This looks reasonably well in dvi and pdf. > OK? That should really be the last error. > > Andreas. > > * copying-lib.texi (Library Copying): Don't use @heading inside > @enumerate. Looks reasonable. Thanks, And

Re: [onlinedocs]: No more automatic rebuilt?

2012-06-29 Thread Andreas Schwab
Next problem: libiberty. This looks reasonably well in dvi and pdf. OK? That should really be the last error. Andreas. * copying-lib.texi (Library Copying): Don't use @heading inside @enumerate. diff --git a/libiberty/copying-lib.texi b/libiberty/copying-lib.texi index 79e1038.

gcc@gcc.gnu.org

2012-06-29 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > Hello, > > I faced a problem with usage of force_gimple_operand function for > specific tree. I have a TARGET_MEM_REF tree node whose address I want > to pass as argument to the function call. I use build_fold_addr_expr > to get address tree

Re: Add corollary extension

2012-06-29 Thread Andrew Haley
On 06/28/2012 08:39 PM, Rick Hodgin wrote: >> Why do you want to bother with a non-standard, >> unportable extension instead of just writing: >> >> inline bool isSystemClosed() >> { return !isSystemOpen; } >> >> Which is simple, conventional, easy to understand >> and portable. >> >> Or in C++ just