being if there are indeed calls to external
locations).
4) The only dynamic relocs needed will be for static data that's statically
initialized to a function pointer -- or other text-section resident objects,
such as .rodata (maybe).
Am I missing something?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 7/21/23 10:57, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 17:00:32 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 7/19/23 20:47, Ben Boeckel wrote:
But it is inhibiting distributed builds because the distributing tool
would need to know:
- what CMIs are actually imported (here, "read the module m
On 7/19/23 20:47, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 17:11:08 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
GCC is neither of these descriptions. a CMI does not contain the transitive
closure of its imports. It contains an import table. That table lists the
transitive closure of its imports (it needs
On 7/18/23 20:01, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 16:52:44 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/25/23 12:36, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 08:12:41 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 6/22/23 22:45, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 17:21:42 -0400, Jason Merrill
On 7/18/23 16:52, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 6/25/23 12:36, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 08:12:41 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 6/22/23 22:45, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 17:21:42 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/25/23 16:06, Ben Boeckel wrote:
They affect the
it is neutered in patch 3 where
`write_make_modules_deps` is used in `make_write` (or will use that name
Why do you want to record the transitive modules? I would expect just noting the
ones with imports directly in the TU would suffice (i.e check the 'outermost' arg)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
lly a clang-specific mechanism, as it has no module mapper ATM
(IIUC)?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
equivalent
of 'rm -f $MODULE.pcm' happen?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 12/7/22 11:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
On 7 Dec 2022, at 16:52, Nathan Sidwell via Gcc wrote:
On 12/7/22 11:18, Iain Sandoe wrote:
I think it is reasonable to include c++ in the spelling, since other languages
supported by
GCC (and clang in due course) have modules.
I disagree (about the
27;s somewhat out of date now.
--
Nathan Sidwell
s to specify the name of the
clang-module file vs a C++ module file? It's only in one mode at a time isn't
it? And that mode is controlled by other options. It cannot generate both in a
single compilation, right?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
lar output file naming. (Incidentally, as clang
treats the BMI as a step in the compilation pipeline, what do you do if you just
want compilation to produce the BMI and no assembly artifact? Does '-o' name
the BMI in that case?)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi Nathan,
On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement
ing like a brushfire on this list the last few weeks.
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/14/21 9:18 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Nathan Sidwell :
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki or
website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
I'm not a GCC in
Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or
other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Searching the wiki
or website finds nothing. The mission statement mentions nothing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.
Then it is important this is resolved.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
to restore credibility and
integrity to this discussion.
People, and companies can chose to support whatever organizations they desire,
and they can chose to withdraw such support. For what ever reasons they may have.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying me?
Nice bit of deflection there. I see what you're doing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
vation for this move right now?
I gave them in my initial email. You can go find them in the archive.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
Ian,
thank you for taking the time to write this. I appreciate that you have
reached out. I do have a couple of comments though.
On 4/1/21 3:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 10:08 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I think you want the steering committee to issue a statement
pen, functional and
inclusive body (which includes, nothing).
nathan
FWIW, I am surprised that you, the SC, chose to respond only to the
mailing list, and not CC me, the original complainant, of your decision.
Perhaps that seems petty, but it is personally insulting.
--
Nathan Sidwell
tion. If we fail to do so, it will continue
to be harder and harder to attract new talent to GCC development.
Address this as a priority. Address it now.
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 10/26/20 7:08 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/25/20 7:52 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Hi
Given that GNU attributes are not part of the standard..
I wonder if the following is expected to work?
__attribute__((__deprecated__))
extern "C" __attribute__((__visibility__("defau
ected unqualified-id before string constant
3 | extern "C" __attribute__((__visibility__("default")))
I don't see why it should be will-formed. 'extern "C"' is a linkage
specification, which precedes (or encloses) a declaration. It is not
storag
tx->return_pn, and we SEGV at runtime
dereferencing a NULL pointer.
Isn't that code breaking the type-based aliasing rules?
'struct pnode *' and 'unsigned int' are not alias-compatible.
does -fno-strict-aliasing resolve things?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
they should be. I don't know why that might be
but a full clean/rebuild fixed it. I've never had this problem
before... so odd.
Sorry for the noise!
heh, it was an amusing story :)
'the bug must be over there. oops, no it wasn't'
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 10/1/20 8:32 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Nathan!
Thanks for the explanations!
On 10/1/20 2:27 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
do you know what those 2 functions you mention provide on say x86? Then it
might be easier to map onto 68k.
From [1]:
Register X86TargetLowering
On 10/1/20 5:49 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi Nathan!
On 9/29/20 7:58 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 9/29/20 11:22 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
I'm looking for an information regarding exception handling on Linux/m68k, in
particular
I need to know what registers are us
r (0?) and the
other is the data pointer (1?).
I can never remember more than that, and usually go build a compiler and
inspect its output to figure more.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
proper compilation, and in general would be difficult to
get right, considering
#define bob 1
#if bob
#else
#endif
where 'bob' is only used during the preprocessing.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
it
more robust - e.g. diagnose the mismatch in the call(s) synthesized to
__cxa_guard_acquire.
It seems we only try to build these function decl(s) once - lazily - so that a
wrong one will persist for the whole TU (and we don’t seem to check that
the decl matches the itanium ABI - perhaps that’s intentional tho).
cheers
Iain
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 8/16/20 9:54 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
"Nathan Sidwell" wrote:
What evidence do you have that your alternative sequence performs
better?
45+ years experience in writing assembly code!
Have you benchmarked it?
Of course! Did you?
I didn't include the numbers in
#x27;)
test cl, cl
setnz al; eax |= (c != '\0')
shreax, cl ; eax >>= (c % ' ')
^^ operand type mismatch on this instruction
xoredx, edx
cmpecx, 33 ; CF = c <= ' '
adcedx, edx ; edx = (c <= ' ')
andeax, edx
ret
regards
Stefan Kanthak
--
Nathan Sidwell
move to newer C++ standards over time, it
is more likely we will start using newer constructs, and some of those
may make the code potentially less readable.
--
Nathan Sidwell
files produced on the side. We simply
disallowed having the user pass -gsplit-dwarf directly to the
compiler.
Feel free to share this.
--
Nathan Sidwell
tics, at the C
abstract machine level, for accessing *a any number of times. Thus
depending on a specific number of accesses is unreliable.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
rce?
The ARM (32) abi has some extensions to that, which originally came from
Alex Oliva and then I implemented (The GNU2 TLS stuff). I think the
smarts is in the linker for that though.
IMHO bfd might be a better source of information than gcc.
natan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 3/9/20 1:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 16:58, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 3/9/20 9:57 AM, Thomas König wrote:
Hi,
I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful than
the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
OMG I&#x
cc-patches/2020-March/date.html just
gives a list of emails, no dates shown. There's no indication what the
ordering is -- and apparently it is not most recent first.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 3/2/20 8:01 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 27/02/2020 13:37, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 2/3/20 6:41 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 22/01/2020 17:45, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
[updated based on v2 discussions]
This patch proposes some new (additional) rules for email
or not.
Recently Honza, me and others discussed LTO's interaction with build
systems, and that perhaps the module mapper could be generalized for
other purposes. (Yes, still need to resurrect my Make PoC)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
e brief summary.
Also, use the shortened form, as the topic part is more usefully
conveyed in the proper topic field (see above).
I've not seen any follow-up to this version. Should we go ahead and
adopt this?
do it!
do it! do it! do it!
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 2/3/20 5:15 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
On 25/01/2020 16:11, Jeff Law wrote:
On Sat, 2020-01-25 at 10:50 -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 1/24/20 4:36 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On Fri, 2020-01-24 at 20:32 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I strongly prefer to move towards relying on the git
s are extracted from GIT. In fact, that's
precisely what I'd like to see us do.
The GCC10 release date would seem a good point to do this. That gives us around
3 months to figure the details (and get stakeholder buy-in)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
ll need to fix such messages, so why not just get them right in the
first place?
Are you using 'merge' with some meaning other than git merge? because
merging to trunk is verboeten.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
pendencies might be relying on that.
I ran into this problem with my hack to add a module-server into make,
and hacked around it in an ugly fashion.
(I've not run this by the GNU-Make maintainers)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 1/13/20 10:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jan 13 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
If I drop 'master' from the command I get:
>git worktree add ../../error/src
Preparing ../../error/src (identifier src1)
* what does &#x
mean, and what did that do?
* should I be using user branches for this?
* is it possible do that all in one command?
> git COMMAND ../../error/src SOMETHING
... now ../../error/src has a checked out /users/nathan/error branch
created from master?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
irror works for me. Thanks to Maxim anyway for all the work - without that
we'd not switch in 10 other years...
Joseph's conversion please
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
even stored).
I've looked into options.h but I cannot figure out how to use it in an
architecture-neutral way.
Um, AVX and such are arch-specific. It sounds like you need some kind
of (new?) langhook that targets can register?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 12/23/19 12:30 PM, Erick Ochoa wrote:
Hi,
I am working on an LTO pass which drops unused fields on structs. On my
tests, I found that the gimple generated for `sizeof` is a constant. For
example, for the following C code:
```
you also need to pay attention to offsetof.
nathan
--
Nathan
through anything that increments tinst_depth.
Why doesn't the std specify the satisfaction nesting limit in the same
way as template instantiation? (at least that's what I infer from your
question).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
Is it time to deprecate traditional preprocessing? It's been 30 years
since C89. Are (non-compiler) tools that use it still things?
Handling it gets its hooks into a bunch of odd places in libcpp.
To be specific: deprecate -traditional-cpp for GCC10, remove in GCC11.
nathan
--
N
On 9/5/19 6:03 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/5/19 12:01 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 2:57 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 9/4/19 7:20 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 9/4/19 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The point of the warning was to see if users complain. Three weeks
the end
of stage1.
I think it'd be ok to install it during stage3 (perhaps early feb?).
More chance of people speaking up.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
backs.
There are cases where the overhead of threads is too expensive. For
instance hiding (cache-missing) load latencies by doing other work while
waiting -- a context switch at that point is far too expensive.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
e.g.:
$ ./gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -mmpx /tmp/main.c
xgcc: warning: switch ‘-mmpx’ is no longer supported
Great! I must have missed that patch. All good to go for gcc-9 deprecation
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 7/10/19 7:28 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Great, thank you.
There's a patch for deprecating of the option in GCC 9 changes.
May I install the patch right now or should I wait?
I think there needs to be a code patch so that use of the option gives a
warning.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 7/9/19 9:00 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:41 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 7/9/19 6:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
Same happens also for GCC7. It does 17 iteration (#define MAX_ITERATIONS 17) and
apparently 17 is not enough to
tes or
just incrementally adds
them to new object files).
I'm not opposed to removing -frepo from GCC 10 but then I would start
noting it is obsolete
on the GCC 9 branch at least.
I concur. frepo's serial reinvocation of the compiler is not compatible
with modern C++ code bases.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
override that extended type.
2) how do you define 'doesn't fit'? decimal 0.1 has a recurring binary
representation. Should that become the longest floating point type?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
d
there did appear to be something funky going on with its interaction
with PCH. I didn't investigate, but have some patches that I'll be
merging in the not too distant future.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
My first reading was that 1 gets
you a warning level, (with the implication that 2 got you an error level
or something?)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
rs is that I seem to remember some
GCC devs saying they wanted to rip out pre-compiled headers completely
once the C++ modules branch is merged, so I'm not sure if it's worth
putting that much work into something that might be removed soon,
anyways... I'm pretty sure Nathan Sidwel
spanning tree used to
determine where to place them.
2) What exactly is the purpose of the constructor (__gcov_init()) and
where are the values of the passed gcov_info struct set (probably
related to 1)?
It's a global constructor, libgcc/libgcov-$something
natha
--
Nathan Sidwell
nore version' developer option, but
as it's only me right now, that's not been a need.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
also fixing a regression?
b) perhaps we shouldn't be sending non-dependent expressions through the
capture machinery, but instead wrapping them in an appropriate
view_convert_expr to make them const?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
__ is a defined macro, so there must
be some other subtlety with __has_include?
nathans@zathras:6>gcc -xc - <:2:2: error: #error DATE IS A MACRO
(typing that makes me realize why users think it is __has_include__,
that's a really unfortunate name to use for an implementation detail)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
) and take care constructing the
__has_include macro expansion to have a token with exactly that spelling?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
a native english speaker, 'at any cost' would be my preferred
formulation.
I also stumbled over "on not introducing" ... would that be better as
"to not introduce"?
Either seems fine to me
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
implications, and save
The point is that tsubst_expr can return NULL_TREE, we should check for it.
Are there cases that tsubst_expr returns NULL when the incoming T is
non-null? I.e. I'm hypothesizing DEF is NULL already.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
thing earlier has convinced them otherwise -- usually a dereference
will do that.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
t out.
IIUC the functionality is moved to the newly named powerpcspe-*-* target?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
provided a written copyright waiver for the
FSF, though they have agreed and my contract already works out well in that
regard.
Any progress on this?
Tim and I are at the same conference, we've been chatting.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
'Don't Repeat Yourself)
- I didn't find a single function to print full nested, scoped id
so had to check if ENUM_IS_SCOPED to output nested specifiers.
This seems a fine approach, given the code base.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
his may be another such bit.)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
Hm, but isn't this info lost if we're in LTO at this point? Not sure if
we'll need to propagate this through the LTO streaming. I guess that's
a later bug to handle though.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 06/26/2018 07:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/26/2018 01:35 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
IIRC, in gcc-land you have to give both noreturn and nothrow
attributes to make it non-unwindable.
Are you sure? I was under the impression that GCC did not do this
because it interferes too much
non-unwindable.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 06/26/2018 07:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/26/2018 12:56 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 06/26/2018 05:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
So it looks to me that the caller of _Unwind_Find_FDE needs to ensure
that the PC is a valid element of the call stack. Is this a correct
assumption?
I
er an exception up it. Are there use cases where that is not
the case?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
howing what the inputs and outputs
are. That tells the optimizers what depends on what, but the compiler
has no clue about what the transform is.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
n its
.data section and squirrel that away somewhere that a decompressor can
find it early on)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
al types
and the local variables should have no linkage, and not conflict.
that does seem plausible. Freddie, please file a bug
--
Nathan Sidwell
SSIGN_OP_P (DECL_NAME (fndecl)), so += and friends are also
caught?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
fied
that includes the objective dialect.
Is it possible to use two different footnote markers such as
{C,C++} and explain in the so-noted footnote?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
makes sense. That ship
sailed years ago.
Yeah, when can I write something as anachronistically futuristic as:
v.qsort ([](auto a, auto b)
{ return int (**(Obj const *const *)a
<=> **(Obj const *const*)b); });
huh?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
fn);
I would expect the second line to be emitted as a note (using inform).
Is there a reason for this or should that be changed?
Probably a sign the code predates 'inform' and/or the error-limit
option. As Paolo says, this should be changed.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
On 03/12/2018 09:24 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
x86_64-fedora -> i586-linux
x86_64-fedora -> i586-mingw32
Ah, I'd interpreted it as
host:linux -> some (embedded) system
host:mingw32 -> same (embedded) system
I answered that question.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
lfcontained testcase, that'd make a great bug
report. (Sadly, 'ivopts can cause code differences' is probably too vague.)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
making it not a tree would win -- you'd be pushing the
int->INTEGER_CST conversions into each base conversion generation.
Don't forget, small integer_csts are commonized)
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
's other data to let code generation know some vtable
inspection is needed when the dynamic type is unknown).
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
mbolic-functions is now a thing, which would be better
--
Nathan Sidwell
--
Nathan Sidwell
odules and trunk may be educational, as
that has to do similar things to enable the new keywords.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
ture an outer scope
object.
lambdas can be templates.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
.rela'
(or .rel' depending on the target ABI) to hold the relocation
data. This is handled by the assembler & BFD.
It's not clear to my why you want this level of detail -- curiosity?
http://www.sco.com/developers/gabi/latest/contents.html
https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/402129/mpx-linux64-abi.pdf
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
X is a relocation section generated by the assembler. GCC emits
debug information using assembler pseudos such as .word etc. Those will
name relocations. The syntax for relocations is target-specific. The
above will be some_symbol@dtpoff or something.
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
1 - 100 of 254 matches
Mail list logo
