Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>>> I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works.
>> We know that it works with our sources and GCC 4.3. We have no idea how
>> well it works with GCC 4.4: we don't do mingw builds there.
>
> BTW, we have local patches not yet integrated that are neede
> > But I'm against doing more than fixing the merge glitch at this stage.
>
> I think that the Windows maintainers should have the final word though.
This change concerns more Ada than the windows port but in any case, I
can't imagine such change being put in stage 4.
Arno
> But I'm against doing more than fixing the merge glitch at this stage.
I think that the Windows maintainers should have the final word though.
--
Eric Botcazou
> > I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works.
>
> We know that it works with our sources and GCC 4.3. We have no idea how
> well it works with GCC 4.4: we don't do mingw builds there.
BTW, we have local patches not yet integrated that are needed for proper
ZCX support,
> I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works.
We know that it works with our sources and GCC 4.3. We have no idea how
well it works with GCC 4.4: we don't do mingw builds there.
> It's not just cygwin, it's also mingw. The Ada compiler is quite broken on
> Windows sinc
> Because stage 4 is not the right stage for such experiments.
I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works.
> Also, we're talking about cygwin AFAIK, which we've never built/tested,
> so we have no idea what the state of things are there.
It's not just cygwin, it's also
> OK, here are the results with only -O2.
Thanks, not bad modulo the cd chapter.
> All the errors in chapter cd are due to a build problem on my machine (the
> test programs cannot find spprt13.ads).
It is supposed to be generated during the preparation phase.
> Altough I already provide a link
Would you mind running it again with the default flags (-O2)?
We don't have comparison points with these non-standard flags.
OK, here are the results with only -O2. All the errors in chapter cd
are due to a build problem on my machine (the test programs cannot find
spprt13.ads). Altough I a
> Here are the ACATS results running gnat with gccflags="-O3
> -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions"
Thanks a lot. Would you mind running it again with the default flags (-O2)?
We don't have comparison points with these non-standard flags.
--
Eric Botcazou
OK, I rebuilt gnat-4.3.3 on MinGW using ZCX_By_Default = False
(system-mingw.ads) and no EH_MECHANISM line in Makefile.in for MinGW.
I also increased the default stack size in system-mingw.ads to
pragma Linker_Options ("-Wl,--stack=0x280");
Here are the ACATS results running gnat with gcc
> IMO you cannot backport such an incompatible change to a release branch. If
> the Windows maintainers are confident enough with it and given that we know
> there is no fundamental issue as far as GNAT is concerned, why not try?
Because stage 4 is not the right stage for such experiments.
Als
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 10:51 +, Dave Korn wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote:
> >>> Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On
> >>> the
> >>> other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline befo
Dave Korn wrote:
> I've attached my current Ada patches
No I haven't! I mean, Now I have!
cheers,
DaveK
--- origsrc/gcc-4.3.2/gcc/ada/Makefile.in 2008-02-13 19:04:53.0 +
+++ src/gcc-4.3.2/gcc/ada/Makefile.in 2009-02-21 20:13:03.40625 +
@@ -198,6 +198,10 @@
#
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote:
>>> Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the
>>> other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before
>>> 4.4.0 is released, we could try there.
>> FYI, I have just
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote:
> > Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the
> > other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before
> > 4.4.0 is released, we could try there.
>
> FYI, I have just succeeded in building
> FYI, I have just succeeded in building gcc-4.3.3 including Ada for MinGW
> by setting
>ZCX_By_Default: constant Boolean := True;
> in system-mingw.ads as suggested by Danny Smith. The ACATS tests show
> quite some failures, though. I don't know if they are due to the EH or
>
> It's too late for that in my mind, this feature should first be developed
> on trunk in stage 1, get proper testing, and then potentially back ported
> if it makes sense.
IMO you cannot backport such an incompatible change to a release branch. If
the Windows maintainers are confident enough wi
Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the
other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before
4.4.0 is released, we could try there.
FYI, I have just succeeded in building gcc-4.3.3 including Ada for MinGW
by setting
ZCX_By_Default
> > Do we have time (and release-managerial leeway)? I probably couldn't
> > start sending patches until the other side of the weekend.
>
> I think we can take the (small) risk for 4.4.0; it's only the Ada compiler and
> only on Windows.
It's too late for that in my mind, this feature should f
> Do we have time (and release-managerial leeway)? I probably couldn't
> start sending patches until the other side of the weekend.
I think we can take the (small) risk for 4.4.0; it's only the Ada compiler and
only on Windows.
> Well... I think that whatever kind of harm it could possibly
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Ah, thanks, I'll have to research this change, I don't know about it yet.
>
> Hidden in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-12/msg00267.html
> The compiler was working before the change so just reverting it should make
> it
> work again. The change was totally accident
> Ah, thanks, I'll have to research this change, I don't know about it yet.
Hidden in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-12/msg00267.html
> I'm not sure if I'll find time to investigate reverting it on the branch:
> my priorities are focussed around maintaining the Cygwin distro compiler
> and
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
>
> Ada, not ADA, that's not an acronym but a name, see http://www.adaic.org
Yes, of course, I knew that really. My most humble apologies to the
late Ms. Lovelace :-)
>> The first problem I ran into was total failure
> Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
Ada, not ADA, that's not an acronym but a name, see http://www.adaic.org
> However the main issues I've been having trouble with show up when I try
> and run the testsuite.
>
> The first problem I ran into was total failure to throw and catch
Hello all, and ADA hackers in particular :-)
I've been having a hard time bootstrapping GNAT 4.3.2 lately, and now I
think I've found the problem. Or /a/ problem, but I'm not sure exactly why
it's a problem in the first place. Let me explain:
As mentioned in an earlier thread, you can
25 matches
Mail list logo
