[PATCH] fix PowerPC < 7 w/ Altivec not to default to power7

This might not be the best timing -short before a major release-, however, Sam just commented on the bug I filled years ago [1], so here we go: Glibc uses .machine to determine assembler optimizations to use. However, since reworking the rs6000 .machine output selection in commit e154242724b084380

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC1

Hi, On Tuesday 30 January 2007 04:06:36 Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 4.1.2 RC1 is now on ftp://gcc.gnu.org and its mirrors. The > canonical location is: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070128 > > As with all prereleases, the issue of most concern to me is packaging. > Therefore,

Re: Does SIMD optimization of GCC 3.4.6 work?

Hi, On Wednesday 05 July 2006 20:26, Dave Korn wrote: > I believe Lionel's real problem is likely to be that he was hoping that > turning on the "-mmx -sse -sse2 -3dnow" options would auto-vectorise his code > for him. > > Lionel, (IIUIC) those options just /enable/ the use of the various SI

Re: Does SIMD optimization of GCC 3.4.6 work?

Hi, On Wednesday 05 July 2006 19:57, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jul 4, 2006, at 7:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The codec is at http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/openavs/. > > Currently, it requires a 3Ghz or better CPU to get a resonable > > framerate. I would like the codec to be useful ev

Re: How to use gcc4 to compile FreeBSD6.0 ?

On Thursday 29 June 2006 08:30, Beyond.Luo wrote: > Hi, all >When I compile FreeBSD6.0 using gcc4.1 instead of gcc3, lots of > errors are reported. > I knowes that gcc4.1 checks syntax more strictly, then how can I do now? > any command-line options? Fix the code? -- René Rebe - Rubensstr.

Re: GCC 4.1 and R_PPC64_ADDR32 out of range

On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:21, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rene Rebe writes: > > Hi, > > > > not such an high priority, but testing the latest gcc 4.1.0 in > > "whole system builds" I stumble over: > > > > jackd: error while loading shared librar

Re: GCC 4.1 and R_PPC64_ADDR32 out of range

Hi, On Tuesday 25 April 2006 14:21, Andrew Haley wrote: > Rene Rebe writes: > > Hi, > > > > not such an high priority, but testing the latest gcc 4.1.0 in > > "whole system builds" I stumble over: > > > > jackd: error while

GCC 4.1 and R_PPC64_ADDR32 out of range

Hi, not such an high priority, but testing the latest gcc 4.1.0 in "whole system builds" I stumble over: jackd: error while loading shared libraries: /usr/lib64/libjack.so.0: R_PPC64_ADDR32 4056b70 for symbol `' out of range There only R_PPC64_ADDR32 in .text+0*. Any idea or proposal how t

[BENCHMARK] comparing GCC 3.4 and 4.0 on an AMD Athlon-XP 2500+

Hi all, I have some preleminary benchmark results comparing 3.4(.3) with 4.0.0, including some optimization option permuations. http://exactcode.de/rene/hidden/gcc-article/2005-gcc-4.0/stat2-rt.png http://exactcode.de/rene/hidden/gcc-article/2005-gcc-4.0/stat2-bt.png rt = runtime bt = buildti

Re: gcc 4.0 miscompilation on sparc(32) with ultrasparc optmization

Hi, Steven Bosscher wrote: this is just a tiny note, that gcc-4.0 does produce miscompiled binaries on sparc(32)-linux with -mcpu=ultrasparc. Some binaries work, however many such as bash, curl or gzip segfault. I know this is not a reduced testcase, just a note. I try to invest some time over t

gcc 4.0 miscompilation on sparc(32) with ultrasparc optmization

Hi all, this is just a tiny note, that gcc-4.0 does produce miscompiled binaries on sparc(32)-linux with -mcpu=ultrasparc. Some binaries work, however many such as bash, curl or gzip segfault. I know this is not a reduced testcase, just a note. I try to invest some time over the weekend to debug

gcc-4.0.0-prerelease: -O0 build time higher than -O1?

Hi all, I'm just doing the first benchmarking with the 4.0.0 pre release (20050319) and just noticed that -O0 build time is not always the fastest. (In contrast to what the changes suggest: "When compiling without optimizations (-O0), the C++ frontend is much faster than in any previous version