Jakub,
> First of all, the -j2 testing shows more tests tested in gcc and libstdc++:
>
>-# of expected passes 10133
>+# of expected passes 10152
>
>+PASS: 23_containers/set/modifiers/erase/abi_tag.cc (test for excess errors)
>[...]
>
>Not sure where the bug is, could be e.g. in
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20140910 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140910/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Sep 10, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Seems file mkdir in tcl doesn't error on pre-existing directory,
shell mkdir will. :-)
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 11:08:22PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Perhaps better approach might be if we have some way how to synchronize among
> multiple expect processes and spawn only as many expects (of course, per
> check target) as there are CPUs. E.g. if mkdir is atomic on all
> hosts/filesy
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:38:32PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > So when last I played in this area, I wanted a command line tool that
> > would bin-pack from the command line. I would then grab the seconds
> > per for each .exp, and bin pack to the fixed N, where N was the core
> > count or rel
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, David Malcolm wrote:
> (A) test discovery; write out a fine-grained Makefile in which *every*
> testcase is its own make target (to the extreme limit of
> parallelizability e.g. on the per-input-file level)
The DejaGnu design doesn't allow test discovery in general (as the se
On Sep 10, 2014, at 1:38 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Perhaps this is a silly question, but has anyone tried going the whole
> way and not having buckets, going to an extremely fine-grained approach
No, we fear the overhead, but do not know what it is.
On September 10, 2014 3:40:05 PM CDT, "Joseph S. Myers"
wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> We have a few RTEMS BSPs which use CPUs where float, double,
>> and long double are the same. This triggers the printf format
>> warning because promoting float to double re
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 11:19 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:14 AM, VandeVondele Joost
> wrote:
> > Attached is a further revision of the patch, now dealing with
> check-c++.
>
> So when last I played in this area, I wanted a command line tool that
> would bin-pack from the command
On Wed, 10 Sep 2014, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi
>
> We have a few RTEMS BSPs which use CPUs where float, double,
> and long double are the same. This triggers the printf format
> warning because promoting float to double results in float.
That was PR c/35649, which should be fixed in 4.9.
--
J
> You mean enhancing the script to split across arbitrarily long prefixes?
> That would be great.
I've now a script that does something like that:
~/test$ find /data/vjoost/gnu/gcc_trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/
-maxdepth 1 -type f -printf "%f\n" | ./generate_patterns.py 500 foo
All 3947
On Sep 9, 2014, at 8:14 AM, VandeVondele Joost
wrote:
> Attached is a further revision of the patch, now dealing with check-c++.
So when last I played in this area, I wanted a command line tool that would
bin-pack from the command line. I would then grab the seconds per for each
.exp, and bin
Hi
We have a few RTEMS BSPs which use CPUs where float, double,
and long double are the same. This triggers the printf format
warning because promoting float to double results in float.
At least that's what I think is happening. This happens on at
least the h8sx and sh2e.
$ h8300-rtems4.11-gcc -
Hi,
I need to do a research project that inserts instructions (e.g., JMP)
after each basic block at runtime of a program (when the program is
already loaded into memory).
I believe first I should allocate more memory space for each basic
block in order to put the extra instructions, when the prog
Hi,
On 09/10/2014 04:39 PM, Hi-Angel wrote:
Below is a sample code to test. GCC with the option allegedly says
that the line «obj = {0};» isn't initializes «mystruct::b» member to
anything, although it really is.
struct mystruct{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main(){
mystr
Below is a sample code to test. GCC with the option allegedly says
that the line «obj = {0};» isn't initializes «mystruct::b» member to
anything, although it really is.
struct mystruct{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main(){
mystruct obj = {1,{2,3}};
printf("%i\n", obj.b[
Thanks for testing.
The vect-args.c I explained earlier, and is indeed due to i386.exp hardcoding
those.
The libstdc++ double counts didn't appear in my testing, but I'll have a look.
Note that these patterns are handwritten, so error prone.
The long tests in libstdc++ come from (in timing o
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 03:14:08PM +, VandeVondele Joost wrote:
> Attached is a further revision of the patch, now dealing with check-c++.
> Roughly 50% speedup here at '-j32' (18m vs 12m). For my setup
> (--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran) I have now improved all targets called in
> 'make -
18 matches
Mail list logo
