Re: c99 does not handle -O2 but cc does?

Am 11.10.2024 um 18:07 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The c99 executable is provided by your distro, it's not part of GCC. Maybe it wants a space between the -O and 2, but I don't know. thanks for clearing that up does not work with spaces - will ask on the Tumbleweed list

c99 does not handle -O2 but cc does?

latest SUSE Tumbleweed/gcc 14.2 c99 -O2 test.c returns: c99: invalid option -- '2' cc -O2 test.c returns successfull according to https://linux.die.net/man/1/c99 the -O2 option should work c99 is used in an older build system and that didn't work due to the -O2 problem

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Richard Earnshaw (lists): > It was very common at that time for suppliers to use slightly modified gcc sources for microcontrollers (especially ARM, but also for other targets).  Typically manufacturers and some major third-party gcc builders were ahead of mainli

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 11:03 schrieb David Brown: So there is a very real chance that the sources you have are not original. You could download the archived release from the gcc website and compare the sources to get some idea if they have changed. i do not have original source - only binaries, i ho

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Fri, 27 Sept 2024, 08:39 Dennis Luehring, wrote: > Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > > > > They might not have > > been using the original gcc-3.4.0 sources. > > > seems to be very possible > &

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

content of my gcc-3.4.0\gcc\config\arm\t-arm-elf https://pastebin.com/CivYHhRa Am 27.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Dennis Luehring via Gcc: im currently trying to replicate a gcc-3.4.0 arm-elf build from an very old cross toolchain building with my script (https://pastebin.com/kAEK0S24) works but

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: They might not have been using the original gcc-3.4.0 sources. seems to be very possible There should be no need to edit those files, but that doesn't mean that the people who built your old toolchain didn't edit them. the other way would

Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

im currently trying to replicate a gcc-3.4.0 arm-elf build from an very old cross toolchain building with my script (https://pastebin.com/kAEK0S24) works but my -print-multi-lib returns only --- .; thumb;@mthumb --- the original builds -print-multi-lib returns --- .; thumb;@mthumb be;@mbig-endi

Re: why are these std::set iterators of different type when compiling with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

Am 24.07.2024 um 12:41 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The standard says it's unspecified whether those types are the same, so portable code should not assume they are/aren't the same. I don't know for sure, but I assume somebody thought that making them different was helpful to avoid non-portable code.

why are these std::set iterators of different type when compiling with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

using latest gcc/STL - #include using int_set1 = std::set>; using int_set2 = std::set; static_assert(std::is_same()); - the two iterators are equal when not using _GLIBCXX_DEBUG but become different when using the define?

Re: [Regarding GCOV].gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

Am 25.04.2024 um 08:45 schrieb Gejoe Daniel via Gcc: Hi team, The following is my query posted but would need more inputs : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch where gcc is 11.4.0 and hence we wanted to

Re: gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

Am 05.12.2020 um 14:25 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allowed) to > reduce this small sample the same way as clang/msvc? Change the name of the function to something else than "main". that works, thanks!

Re: gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

Am 05.12.2020 um 13:04 schrieb Jan Hubicka: > gcc does not reduce to call result if called function is not static in > -O2 (will do with -O2) > clang and msvc does it also in -O2 regardless of the function beeing > static or not > > can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allo

gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

gcc does not reduce to call result if called function is not static in -O2 (will do with -O2) clang and msvc does it also in -O2 regardless of the function beeing static or not can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allowed) to reduce this small sample the same way as clang/m

when will "scoped template specalization" be available? gcc trunk seems not support it

i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17 - is it planned for the next gcc release? otherwise i will switch to an if constexpr solution - but would be still to have this feature checked compiler: gcc trunk (and latest intel) do not support it clang (starting with release

when will scoped template specialization be available in gcc?

i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17 suports it: -clang starting with release 7 -MSVC starting with VS2017(i don't know what revision) no support: -gcc(trunk) -latest Intel https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1GET6v -- enum class E{ A, B }; struct Ta{ int x; }; struct

is there a reason why "explicit specialization in non-namespace scope" is still an error in gcc-trunk?

i've read that scoped template specalization is allowed in C++17 clang supports it starting with release 7 MSVC supports it with VS2017(i don't know what revision) Intel does not like it https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/1GET6v -- enumclass E{ A, B }; struct Ta{ int x; }; struct Tb{ float y; 

Re: update github gcc mirror forks to the new repo?

Am 18.02.2020 um 11:43 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 06:38, Dennis Luehring wrote: > > so the github gcc mirror is already using the new reposurgeon based git > repo, > > that means that all the commit hashes etc. are different if someone > forked this gcc

update github gcc mirror forks to the new repo?

so the github gcc mirror is already using the new reposurgeon based git repo, that means that all the commit hashes etc. are different if someone forked this gcc mirror so easy pulling from the mirror isn't possible anymore - or am im wrong? is there any description how to "port" over github p

Re: Is ther document that describes how the "braching/fixing" on releases is done

Am 17.02.2020 um 10:51 schrieb Richard Biener: I would start merging the new feature ontop master to the point where GCC 6 branched (so go _back_ in time) and only then start moving forward, remaining on master. good idea, thank you

Re: Is ther document that describes how the "braching/fixing" on releases is done

Am 16.02.2020 um 18:42 schrieb David Edelsohn: If you are trying to forward-port your own, proprietary features into a newer release of GCC for your own, internal use, that's your responsibility. that is my case, i ask for a meaningfull way of doing that i could upgrade the 6.3 branch to 6.4,

Re: Is ther document that describes how the "braching/fixing" on releases is done

Am 16.02.2020 um 18:27 schrieb David Edelsohn: On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:19 PM Dennis Luehring wrote: > > Am 16.02.2020 um 18:03 schrieb David Edelsohn: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline > > > Thanks > > any idea how to reintegrate (many) changes from a

Re: Is ther document that describes how the "braching/fixing" on releases is done

Am 16.02.2020 um 18:03 schrieb David Edelsohn: https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline Thanks any idea how to reintegrate (many) changes from a release/6.3.0 branch back into mainline? is there a tag or something where mainline was for short time in sync with 6.3.0?

Is ther document that describes how the "braching/fixing" on releases is done

GCC 7.5 November 14, 2019 GCC 9.2 August 12, 2019 GCC 9.1 May 3, 2019 GCC 8.3 February 22, 2019 GCC 7.4 December 6, 2018 GCC 6.5 October 26, 2018 GCC 8.2 July 26, 2018 GCC 8.1 May 2, 2018 GCC 7.3 January 25, 2018 GCC 5.5 October 10, 2017 GCC 7.2 August 14, 2017 GCC 6.4 July 4, 2017 GCC 7.1 May 2,

Re: Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

the differences between Maxim and Erics final result will hopefully show the open bugs in both tools and allow fixing - i think this compare phase is needed if the result should be the best possible Am 11.12.2019 um 16:19 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (l

Re: Status of C++11 support

Overview: https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx11 Am 09.12.2019 um 04:17 schrieb Nicholas Krause: Greetings, I was wondering what the current status of being able to use C++11 is without the gcc project. Seems it will be much easier to implement  basic spinlocks with the  C++11 memo

Re: current state of gcc-ia16?

is the patch already integrated into mainline? No, it's not. will that ever happen? is this the most recent development place? https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16 Yes, that's the right place. thx Am 08.06.2018 um 12:59 schrieb Andrew Jenner: Hi Dennis, On 08/06/2018 11:

current state of gcc-ia16?

is the patch already integrated into mainline? is this the most recent development place? https://github.com/tkchia/gcc-ia16

Re: Successful bootstrap and install of gcc (GCC) 6.3.0 on mips64el-unknown-linux-gnu

are you only building gcc or also glibc/binutils? and building a kernel with minimal hello world init or something for testing? what about a dec-alpha build test :) Am 08.01.2017 um 21:27 schrieb Aaro Koskinen: Hi, Here's a report of a successful build and install of GCC: $ gcc-6.3.0/config.

check for the existence of "__sync_lock_test_and_set"

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.2/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html is there a define to check for the existence of "__sync_lock_test_and_set"

FIXED LINKS: gcc 4.8.3 configure/build targeting alpha dec does not fully respect --prefix - or is it something else?

h target alpha so mips/sparc respecting --prefix=/cross-tools, but alpha only partialy - seems to be a bug in gcc/configuration === Any idea/hint where/how to find/correct the gcc-search-dirs differences for the alpha target to be CLFS conform and buildable? Thanks, Dennis

gcc 4.8.3 configure/build targeting alpha dec does not fully respect --prefix - or is it something else?

ome through gcc configure parameters - but are just partialy missing with target alpha so mips/sparc respecting --prefix=/cross-tools, but alpha only partialy - seems to be a bug in gcc/configuration === Any idea/hint where/how to find/correct the gcc-search-dirs differences for the alpha target to be CLFS conform and buildable? Thanks, Dennis

Re: simple example -O3 optimizer problem?

Am 18.07.2014 11:14, schrieb Andrew Haley: On 07/18/2014 09:40 AM, Dennis Luehring wrote: > Am 18.07.2014 10:29, schrieb Andrew Haley: >> On 18/07/14 08:30, Dennis Luehring wrote: >>>int* array = (int*)&argv; >> >> This looks like undefined behaviour. Don&#

Re: simple example -O3 optimizer problem?

Am 18.07.2014 10:29, schrieb Andrew Haley: On 18/07/14 08:30, Dennis Luehring wrote: >int* array = (int*)&argv; This looks like undefined behaviour. Don't you get a warning? Andrew. no warning - its an valid typed pointer to stack and i don't care what the values are

simple example -O3 optimizer problem?

tested following code with http://gcc.godbolt.org/ tested with g++-4.8 (Ubuntu 4.8.1.2ubuntu1~12.04) 4.8.1 g++ (GCC) 4.9.0 20130909 (experimental) and the result with -O3 + defined USE_ITER seems to be a little bit long -- static void foo(int a, int& dummy) { dummy += a; } #define U

Re: is there a optimizing opportunity for const std::vector + std::initializer_list replaced with std::array?

Am 20.09.2013 07:50, schrieb Marc Glisse: (gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org would have been a better list) On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Dennis Luehring wrote: > gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11 > > small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with > const std::vector

is there a optimizing opportunity for const std::vector + std::initializer_list replaced with std::array?

gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11 small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with const std::vector/std::arrays + simple operations --- #include #include #include #define USE_ARRAY #if defined(USE_ARRAY) static int calc(const std::array p_ints, const int& p_

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> On 11 November 2012 21:57, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Here is what I did with gmp : > > > > $ ls $SRC/gmp* > > /usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.bz2 > > > > $ /opt/schily/bin/star -x -bz -xdir -xdot -U -fs=16m > > file=/usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> > What isn't clear is where that is run. I decided that I will take your > > approach and try to follow the magic incantations to the very > letter. OKay, > > sort of. I may expand on the CFLAGS just a little bit and I have to > assume, > > in the absence of any data, that I shall run these "c

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

/gmp-5.0.5_SunOS5.10_sparcv9-for-gcc-4.7.2/mpn/sparc64/gmp-mparam.h to gmp-mparam.h config.status: executing libtool commands $ ran gmake, runs fine gmake check runs fine also The result however, is that the gcc build dir is polluted with objects from the gmp build. Not what I want most likely. > No, don't mess with CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET or BOOT_CFLAGS, just type 'make'. okay ! Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

_FOR_TARGET,BOOT_CFLAGS}='-m64 -O2' > > No, don't mess with CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET or BOOT_CFLAGS, just type 'make'. I would have to edit that as I use gcc to bootstrap gcc. Hoever, I am very willing to give your method a try. However, my prediction is that Oracle Studio 12.3 will have a fit .. early. Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

ormation for libmpfr. current=5 age=1 revision=1 been there .. done that .. over and over. > (linker errors involving alloca) > - Build the support libs with --disable-shared to avoid strange > TLS-related loader errors > - Disable -g to avoid linker errors mentioning R_SPARC_UA32 and > .rela.debug_info during stage 3 I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this won't be easy to do .. but I'll keep hacking at it. Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> > nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse > than > > before : > > Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly... I can not see my error here and am wondering what the issue is. > > However I am way way open to suggestion here. > > You ne

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

grep ELF | grep -c "ELF 64-bit" 825 $ find . -type f | xargs file | grep ELF | grep -c "ELF 32-bit" 5 .. but .. no solution in sight. However I am way way open to suggestion here. Dennis

the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

this is pass 1 with hopes that by the third time I do this it will be a fine art. Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ? Dennis ps: I am using gcc 4.5.1 to perform the bootstrap and this release has been very well tested : $ which gcc /opt/csw/gcc4/bin/gcc $ $ $CC --version

Re: Deprecate 32-bits HP-PA for GCC 4.8?

run either 32-bit Solaris 8 and 9 or 64-bit Solaris 8 and 9. Some people have run Solaris 10 also which is purely a 64-bit kernel. In any case, those are just my thoughts on old legacy Sun gear. Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vinde

go in 4.7.0 seems to fail quite badly

ve seen better results. Thank you .. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-----+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

gnatmake: "xgnatugn.ali" incompatible ALI file, please recompile

trap build with good test results however install fails as seen above. Any enlightened thoughts would be welcome. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Sola

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

1D936C72FA35B44B +-+-------+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

>> Hr, tried that and didn't get very far probably because the >> srcdir is at ../gcc-4.6.3 > > I don't think that's the problem. > > Maybe you need > make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=limits-exprparen.c > or > make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=*/limits-exprparen.c > or some other variatio

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

> On 19 March 2012 14:56, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> >> thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html >> >>                === gcc tests === >> >> >> Running target unix >> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c  -O0  

gcc-4.6.3 ICE

again. In detail. What would the procedure for that be ? -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org

Re: strange error during make install of 4.6.3

Also : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-02/msg00153.html > > I was surprised to see this pop up during make install : >

strange error during make install of 4.6.3

c' gmake[1]: *** [install-gcc] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/bw/src/gcc-4.6.3-SunOS5.8-i386' gmake: *** [install] Error 2 $ Weird. Never saw that on sparc nor anywhere else. There is a pre-existing GCC 4.5.3 as that was the compiler used in stage 1 of the bootstrap. Any tho

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

us of virtual processor 1 as of: 03/12/12 11:47:00 on-line since 04/28/11 17:39:48. The i386 processor operates at 400 MHz, and has an i387 compatible floating point processor. titan-i386-SunOS5.8 $ cat /etc/release Solaris 8 2/02 s28x_u7wos_08a INTEL Copyright 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Assembled 18 December 2001 So I have not seen a gmp mpfr or mpc issue, anywhere. HOWEVER, I do use the very latest revs of mpfr,gmp and mpc. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

fine grained control over testsuite

timed out. . . . Somewhat annoying as I am in no particular hurry. :-) dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | |

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On 03/02/2012 08:40 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>>> If all goes well, I'd like to release 4.7.0 in about three weeks. >>>> >>>> I'll drop it on Solaris. Give it a push. Do we realy really need that >>>> ppl/cloog stuff? I have

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org >>> >>> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from >>> >>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302 >>> >>> and

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

uld probably be clarified. Would be cool to say "entirely optional". dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

tp://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: error in gcc version 4.6.2 ???

ata definition has no type or storage class [enabled by default] foobar.c:62:9: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant foobar.c:64:2: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'return' foobar.c:66:1: error: expected identifier or '(' b

Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing

ae: wrong+0x000e: movl 0x0008(%ecx),%eax (dbx) where =>[1] wrong(0x0), at 0x80506ae [2] main(0x1, 0x8047b4c, 0x8047b54), at 0x80506ca (dbx) quit $ /opt/studio/SOS11/SUNWspro/bin/cc -V cc: Sun C 5.8 Patch 121016-08 2009/04/20 usage: cc [ options] files. Use 'cc -flags' for d

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> for (argno = 0; argno < argc; argno++) { >> if (argno < 6) >> *tsp++ = reg[REG_O0 + argno] = va_arg(ap, long); >> else >> *tsp++ = va_arg(ap, long);

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

*tsp++ = va_arg(ap, long); } va_end(ap); reg[REG_SP] = (greg_t)sp - STACK_BIAS; /* sp (when done) */ reg[REG_O7] = (greg_t)resumecontext - 8;/* return pc */ } -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&sear

Re: 4.7 RC ?

>> Any expected date on a 4.7 RC ? > > When it's ready. Which we'd usually expect it to be around the > beginning of April. cool. thank you. -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+----

4.7 RC ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Any expected date on a 4.7 RC ? - -- - -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | |

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

e to start. Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: Go in gcc 4.7

block a port to Solaris today? Are there specific bugids I can look at ? Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dc

Re: bootstrap regression on sparc

> > While building libstdc++ I get an assertion failure in haifa-sched.c, > specifically the assertion on line 3437 is failing: I am seeing no major problems on Sparc at all. What rev of GCC are you referring to please? Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vind

Re: bootstrap of 4.6.2 on Solaris i386, gone in 60 seconds

> Message from Dennis Clarke at 2011-11-07 > 06:38:47 -- >> > Have you checked your ulimit? >> >>I was thinking that too! I just recently increased the stack size limit >> to >>16 MB : > > The 'fix' in mainline set it higher: >

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> Only the new "go" language seems to be a major issue now. > > The implementation of Go in the 4.6 releases does not support Solaris. > > Go on Solaris works on mainline. Well, I would not have seen that coming. I should look more c

Re: bootstrap of 4.6.2 on Solaris i386, gone in 60 seconds

> This should probably be on the gcc-help list. I never really know which direction to go as the issues seem to be related to how limits-exprparen.c gets tested. However, no problem, I'll jump ship and get out of this ml. > On 7 November 2011 01:08, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> I'm not too sure how many things changed from 4.6.1 to 4.6.2 but I am >> seeing a really large increase in the number of "unexpected failures" on >> various tests. >> >> With 4.6.1 and Solaris I was able to get r

bootstrap of 4.6.2 on Solaris i386, gone in 60 seconds

gmake: *** [all] Error 2 real 49.639 user1.259 sys 0.381 titan$ I can not figure out why I would be seeing a error like that. baffled on Solaris , Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-----+

# of unexpected failures 790

probably impossible. I'll give it a go anyways. This can't get worse. Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open S

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

em. > > But having config.guess produce "i386" for an OS which does not even run > on a vanilla i386 is also wrong. A much better choice here would be the > earliest CPU value which the OS actually supports. $ isalist -v pentium_pro+mmx pentium_pro pentium+mmx pentium i486 i38

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

the > GCC build system isn't the least common denominator of them. This > single-system mindset creates unnecessary trouble in this scenario. > GCC's configure has enough control over the default target CPU, even > without messing with config.guess, and most other programs

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-----+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

isainfo -v 64-bit sparcv9 applications 32-bit sparc applications On some old pentium box you get this : Sun Microsystems Inc. SunOS 5.8 Generic February 2000 $ $ isalist -a pentium_pro+mmx pentium_pro pentium+mmx pentium i486 i386 i86 $ isainfo -v 32-bit i386 applications $ Dennis

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

company-internal build ;-) > > Rainer * nod * Will redo ... and see what I get. Thanks for the input. Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+-------+ | Dennis Clarke | S

Re: # of unexpected failures 768 ?

stop building GCC for i386 on Solaris: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-10/msg5.html The Os is on Vintage support until March 2012. Also, I never had problems with it before. As for "completely redundant options" I have been building gcc like this for a while. also never a

# of unexpected failures 768 ?

ler error) What should I think about an "internal compiler error" ? Dennis ( concerned in Solaris world ) -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Sol

gcc-4.6.2-RC-20111019 build problem in stage 2

/libcpp.a ../libdecnumber/libdecnumber.a ../libcpp/libcpp.a ./../intl/libintl.a ../libiberty/libiberty.a ../libdecnumber/libdecnumber.a -L/opt/bw/lib/sparcv8 -lmpc -lmpfr -lgmp -ldl -liconv -L../zlib -lz /opt/bw/src/GCC/gcc-4.6.2-RC-20111019-build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/bw/src/GCC/

Re: I've successfully build 4.5.3 on Solaris x86

Sparc v7, v8, v9 and on i386 and AMD64. I have not bothered with Intel i7 as I don't see it as any different from an x86_64 build on AMD Opterons. At least, the result is the same. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris

Re: GCC 4.6.0 Released

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >>> The only caveat are strange errors with gmake: >>> >>> make[3]: write error >>> >>> See CR 6938116 GNU make highly unreliable: `write error' message. >>> >>> I've hacked around thi

Re: GCC 4.6.0 Released

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> Do you know if anyone has ever tested that on Solaris ? Lately Solaris >> is >> where open source goes to die ( blame Larry for that ) so I figure I may >> as well give it a shot, but before I do .. tell me know if this little >> t

Re: GCC 4.6.0 Released

certainly > works with -j48 that I'm using daily. > > Jakub Do you know if anyone has ever tested that on Solaris ? Lately Solaris is where open source goes to die ( blame Larry for that ) so I figure I may as well give it a shot, but before I do .. tell me know

[Fwd: GCC 4.6.0 Released]

GCC is the ultimate open source project in my opinion in that it gives birth to everything else. Well, that makes binutils the pen-ultimate I guess. :-) Thank you to the massive collection of Red Hat guys and volunteers and to a massive colleection of truely gifted programmers and the FSF for m

Re: Parma Polyhedra Library 0.11.1

> > We announce the availability of PPL 0.11.1, a new release of the Parma > Polyhedra Library. This release includes several important bug fixes > and performance improvements. I was awaiting this. I will now try this on Solaris. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- E

Really poor 4.5.2 results on Debian Squeeze with Intel i7

bugurl=http://www.blastwave.org/support --enable-bootstrap EOF After three days ... I gave up waiting. comments welcome . -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

erely an observation from someone that tries to be very very careful with testing and with testsuite results. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris ps: thus far GCC 4.5.2 is beaut

GCC 4.5.2 ?

It is Wed now. Will we see a official release this week ? -- Dennis

gcc-4.5.2-RC-20101208 warning in fold-const.c

20101208/gcc/fold-const.c:14267:3: warning: new qualifiers in middle of multi-level non-const cast are unsafe This is probably filed as a bug somewhere but I couldn't find it. -- Dennis

Re: 4.5.2 20101213 (prerelease) ??

> On 13 December 2010 15:31, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Dear GCC folks : >> >> I have been closely watching the testsuite results as they come in and I >> have yet to see anyone do anything with the 4.5.2 RC for Solaris. Other >> than me of course. I have seen som

4.5.2 20101213 (prerelease) ??

01062.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01063.html If there is some other snapshot or RC that I should be testing please let me know. Thank you dear GCC folks. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate : WARNING: program timed out.

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> WARNING: program timed out. >> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O0 (test for excess errors) > > This is likely a bug in your assembler. Well, the assembler is this : # file /usr/local/bin/as /usr/local/bin/as: ELF 32-bit LSB ex

GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate : WARNING: program timed out.

-torture/compile/pr46534.c -Os (test for excess errors) WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O2 -flto (test for excess errors) WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O2 -fwhopr (test for excess errors) . . . -- Dennis Clarke dcla

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> > > Dennis Clarke-2 wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>> This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10. >> >> Have you tried a bootstrap with neither ppl nor cloog ? I

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Jack Howarth wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > >> >> > > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> >> > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10. >> >> Have you tried a bootstrap with nei

  1   2   >