Does gcc cilk plus support include offloading to graphics hardware?

2016-04-19 Thread Hal Ashburner
Release notes say: "Full support for Cilk Plus has been added to the GCC compiler. Cilk Plus is an extension to the C and C++ languages to support data and task parallelism." gcc-5.2 (centos-7, devtoolset-4) says: g++ -std=c++14 -Wall -O3 -march=native -fcilkplus vec_add.cpp -o vec_add vec_add.cp

gcc-5-20160419 is now available

2016-04-19 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20160419 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160419/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Re: Please block seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression

2016-04-19 Thread Christopher Faylor
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:30:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: >On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> We're sorry for the problems. Bill was updating our scripts to enable the >> gcc-6-branch for testing, and unfortunately things went massively wrong. >> This has been shut down, and we're t

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Cary Coutant
> As one of the strong advocates for the fix that was made to make > protected visibility work correctly with data symbols, I'd like to > explain why it was the right decision and why it matters. This whole > process is really frustrating to me -- having invested a lot of effort > into getting some

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Rich Felker
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:10:58PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > > >> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just > >> broken and we should forgo with it, making i

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > >> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just >> broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default >> visibility? > > Like how? You mean in GCC regard

Re: Please block seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression

2016-04-19 Thread Joseph Myers
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote: > We're sorry for the problems. Bill was updating our scripts to enable the > gcc-6-branch for testing, and unfortunately things went massively wrong. > This has been shut down, and we're taking several precautions to ensure > nothing like this happens aga

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:58 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: >> Another old bug: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908 > > Filed by you, and resolved (correctly) as invalid. Again, the real > problem was the lack of a linker diagnostic. > It doesn't make what you said was true. -- H

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Cary Coutant
> Another old bug: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10908 Filed by you, and resolved (correctly) as invalid. Again, the real problem was the lack of a linker diagnostic. -cary

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Cary Coutant
> Cary, please stop spreading the incorrect information. There is > at lease one GCC bug against protected symbol: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55012 > > which was reported by other people. OK, so it got reported once by someone else. But that bug was based on an incorrect un

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:52 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: > So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just > broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to defaul

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default visibility? >>> >>> Like how? You mean in GCC

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Alan Modra
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:20:23AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > >> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: >>> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just >>> broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default >>> visibility? >> >> Like how? You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility? No, >> that'

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Cary Coutant
>> So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just >> broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default >> visibility? > > Like how? You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility? No, > that's just throwing out the baby with the water. We should make

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > So with all this it sounds that current protected visibility is just > broken and we should forgo with it, making it equal to default > visibility? Like how? You mean in GCC regarding protected as default visibility? No, that's just throwing

Re: Please block seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression

2016-04-19 Thread Bill Seurer
On 04/19/16 04:56, Joseph Myers wrote: In the past few days, seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com has sent half a gigabyte of huge messages such as to gcc-regression, those messages containing no actual useful information about regressions caused

Please block seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression

2016-04-19 Thread Joseph Myers
In the past few days, seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com has sent half a gigabyte of huge messages such as to gcc-regression, those messages containing no actual useful information about regressions caused by GCC commits. Overseers, could yo

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Szabolcs Nagy
On 19/04/16 09:20, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra wrote: On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > To summarize:

Re: libatomic on ARM

2016-04-19 Thread Sebastian Huber
On 19/04/16 10:52, Sebastian Huber wrote: Hello, I tried to build the libatomic for RTEMS on ARM and I got this error: make[2]: Entering directory `/build/git-build/b-gcc-git-arm-rtems4.12/arm-rtems4.12/thumb/armv6-m/libatomic' /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile /build/git-build/b-

libatomic on ARM

2016-04-19 Thread Sebastian Huber
Hello, I tried to build the libatomic for RTEMS on ARM and I got this error: make[2]: Entering directory `/build/git-build/b-gcc-git-arm-rtems4.12/arm-rtems4.12/thumb/armv6-m/libatomic' /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile /build/git-build/b-gcc-git-arm-rtems4.12/./gcc/xgcc -B/build/gi

Re: Re: Re: Adding a new thread model to GCC

2016-04-19 Thread lh_mouse
Thanks to ktietz, Elieux, mingwandroid (via IRC) and jwakely (via mail), the integration of mcfgthread and gcc has been accomplished. This 9000- patch applies to the gcc-5-branch after all other patches from https://github.com/Alexpux/MINGW-packages/tree/master/mingw-w64-gcc-git are applied. Aft

Re: Preventing preemption of 'protected' symbols in GNU ld 2.26 [aka should we revert the fix for 65248]

2016-04-19 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Alan Modra wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 07:59:50AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Alan Modra wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:01:48AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> To summarize: there is currently no testcase for a wrong-c