On 01/04/2011 07:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
For a minimal fix, I propose to change combinable fields of assembly
languages in default_compilers[] to 0. See the attached patch
"gcc-not-combine-assembly-inputs.diff". I don't know why the comb
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
> For a minimal fix, I propose to change combinable fields of assembly
> languages in default_compilers[] to 0. See the attached patch
> "gcc-not-combine-assembly-inputs.diff". I don't know why the combinable
> fields were set to 1 when --combine
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> No, it is not. All .go input files must be passed to go1 at once.
>> H.J.'s patch has indeed broken gccgo.
>
> Interesting. Do we have a testcase that is now broken? It seems to me
> that gcgo should force
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 09:04:06PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@6:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> >
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:04 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylo
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Richard Guenther writes:
> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>
> Interesting. Do we have a testcase that is now broken? It seems to me
See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-01/msg00011.html
--
H.J.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>>
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>>>
>>> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
>>> gcc -
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>>
Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>>>
>>> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
>>> gcc -o
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 13:18:22 -0800
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> No, it is not. All .go input files must be passed to go1 at once.
> H.J.'s patch has indeed broken gccgo.
I can confirm that. I just tried to svn merge trunk 168407 into the GCC MELT
branch (which, appart from the MELT stuff, is exac
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>>
>> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
>> gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
>> Is that what we want?
>
> Does it? I d
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>
> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
> gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
> Is that what we want?
>
No. We always do
[i...@gnu-1 gcc]$ gcc -o foo.o
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
>
> Wait. That will change the behaviour of
> gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
> Is that what we want?
Does it? I don't think so. Most of the combine han
Richard Guenther writes:
> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess.
Wait. That will change the behaviour of
gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c
Is that what we want?
Also, right now the gccgo driver depends on the -o behaviour to combine
inputs. If that changes, the driver will need
9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>>>
ie Zhang wrote:
>>>>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>>>>>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
>>>&
t;>>>>
>>>>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>>>>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
>>>>>
>>>>> , the dri
t;>>>>
>>>>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>>>>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
>>>>>
>>>>> gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
>>>>>
>>>>> , the dri
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just found a behavior change of dr
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>>> files. Previously (before r164357),
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote:
> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
>>
>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
>>
>> gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
>>
&g
On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
, the driver will call assembler twice, once for t1.s and once for t2.s.
After r164357, the driver will only
I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly
files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line
gcc -o t t1.s t2.s
, the driver will call assembler twice, once for t1.s and once for t2.s.
After r164357, the driver will only call assembler once for t1.s and
t2.s
26 matches
Mail list logo
