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
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> 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
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> 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
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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 c
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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 c
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 driver on multiple input assembly
files. Pr
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), for the command line
>>>
>>> gcc -o t
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
>>
>> , the driver will call assembler twice,
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 c
25 matches
Mail list logo