Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

Thanks. I am only building C/C++ not the rest of the suite. Most of my changes so far are to the c/c++ parser. But I will have changes to the code generation backends. I was having a problem with building my code - late in the build process - I beleive when it was getting ready to run unit t

Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 at 10:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 09:54:02AM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 09:01 David H. Lynch Jr. via Gcc, > > wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to build gcc 13 with gcc 14 ? > > > > > > > Yes > > Note, there are some e

Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

On Nov 30 2024, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote: > Note, there are some exceptions, I think e.g. Ada needs the same or older > major version of gnat and doesn't work well with newer Ada (but if you don't > need Ada, that is a non-issue). That may also be an issue for D. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@li

Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 09:54:02AM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 09:01 David H. Lynch Jr. via Gcc, > wrote: > > > Is it possible to build gcc 13 with gcc 14 ? > > > > Yes Note, there are some exceptions, I think e.g. Ada needs the same or older major version of gn

Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 09:54 Jonathan Wakely, wrote: > > > On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 09:01 David H. Lynch Jr. via Gcc, > wrote: > >> Is it possible to build gcc 13 with gcc 14 ? >> > > Yes > > >> My system updated to gcc 14 and I am doing some private development for >> hardware stesting of a new memor

Re: building gcc 14 with gcc 14 ?

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024, 09:01 David H. Lynch Jr. via Gcc, wrote: > Is it possible to build gcc 13 with gcc 14 ? > Yes > My system updated to gcc 14 and I am doing some private development for > hardware stesting of a new memory addressing paradigm using the GCC 13 > code base. > Now I can't compi

Re: Building gcc with "-O -g"?

On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 07:35:22PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Steve Kargl via Gcc wrote: > > > So, how does one biulding all parts of gcc with "-O -g"? > > > > In my shell script, I have > > > > CFLAGS="-O -g" > > export CFLAGS > > > > CXXFLAGS="-O -g" > > export CXXFLAGS

Re: Building gcc with "-O -g"?

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Steve Kargl via Gcc wrote: So, how does one biulding all parts of gcc with "-O -g"? In my shell script, I have CFLAGS="-O -g" export CFLAGS CXXFLAGS="-O -g" export CXXFLAGS BOOT_CFLAGS="-O -g" export BOOT_CFLAGS ../gcc/configure --prefix=$HOME/work --enable-languages=c,

Re: Building gcc-12 on MacOS Ventura (aarch64)

On 25/3/2023 11:08 am, Stuff Received wrote: > On 2023-03-24 19:51, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 25/3/2023 10:07 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:07 Jonathan Wakely, >> > wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:03 Chris Johns, >>

Re: Building gcc-12 on MacOS Ventura (aarch64)

On 2023-03-24 19:51, Chris Johns wrote: On 25/3/2023 10:07 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:07 Jonathan Wakely, mailto:jwakely@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:03 Chris Johns, mailto:ch...@contemporary.net.au>> wrote: Hi, I am sorting out

Re: Building gcc-12 on MacOS Ventura (aarch64)

On 25/3/2023 10:07 am, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:07 Jonathan Wakely, > wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:03 Chris Johns, > wrote: > > Hi, > > I am sorting out some issues building RTEMS

Re: Building gcc-12 on MacOS Ventura (aarch64)

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:07 Jonathan Wakely, wrote: > > > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:03 Chris Johns, wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am sorting out some issues building RTEMS on MacOS including the M >> processors. >> The building gcc-12.2.1 for the few architectures I tested fail with sig >> faults >> in x

Re: Building gcc-12 on MacOS Ventura (aarch64)

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023, 23:03 Chris Johns, wrote: > Hi, > > I am sorting out some issues building RTEMS on MacOS including the M > processors. > The building gcc-12.2.1 for the few architectures I tested fail with sig > faults > in xgcc when building the runtime. I tried arm, aarch64 and sparc. As a

Re: Building gcc 12 cross-compiler with --enable-lto on FreeBSD fails

On 15/6/22 7:56 pm, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:27 AM Chris Johns > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to build a cross-compiler on FreeBSD with --enable-lto because a >> chip vendor is using it when building controller software that is part of a >> system. >> >> The build

Re: Building gcc 12 cross-compiler with --enable-lto on FreeBSD fails

On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 11:27 AM Chris Johns wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to build a cross-compiler on FreeBSD with --enable-lto because a > chip vendor is using it when building controller software that is part of a > system. > > The build I am using symlinks gmp, mpfr etc as source so they ar

Re: Building gcc for C and C++ with a custom glibc

On 1/17/21 4:08 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:06 PM Tom Honermann via Gcc wrote: Hi all. I've been trying to build a custom gcc (trunk) with a custom glibc (trunk) with support for C and C++ on x86_64 Linux and have so far been unsuccessful at identifying a sequence of configure

Re: Building gcc for C and C++ with a custom glibc

On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 1:06 PM Tom Honermann via Gcc wrote: > > Hi all. I've been trying to build a custom gcc (trunk) with a custom > glibc (trunk) with support for C and C++ on x86_64 Linux and have so far > been unsuccessful at identifying a sequence of configure/make > invocations that compl

RE: Building gcc with graphite

Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Tom de Vries [mailto:tom_devr...@mentor.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:09 PM > To: Kumar, Venkataramanan > Cc: gcc Development ; Sebastian Pop > > Subject: Re: Building gcc with graphite > > [ cc-ing gcc ml ] &g

Re: Building gcc with graphite

[ cc-ing gcc ml ] On 12/04/16 11:22, Kumar, Venkataramanan wrote: Hi, I am trying to build gcc with graphite enabled both on trunk and the graphite branch. I don't know anything about the graphite branch. Should I need to build and install cloog , ISL PPL etc? Trunk needs ISL. Is ther

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

Martin> The one that's more difficult is 18881 where the debugger cannot Martin> resolve calls to functions overloaded on the constness of the Martin> argument. Do you happen to have a trick for dealing with that Martin> one? Nothing really convenient to use. Sometimes you can get it to do the r

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

On 12/04/2015 10:32 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: "Martin" == Martin Sebor writes: Martin> To get around these, I end up using info macro to print the Martin> macro definition and using whatever it expands to instead. I Martin> wonder if someone has found a more convenient workaround. For some of th

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

> "Martin" == Martin Sebor writes: Martin> To get around these, I end up using info macro to print the Martin> macro definition and using whatever it expands to instead. I Martin> wonder if someone has found a more convenient workaround. For some of these, like the __builtin_offsetof and __

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

On 3 December 2015 at 16:01, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 12/02/2015 06:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 20:05 -0500, Ryan Burn wrote: >>> >>> Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for >>> debugging? >>> >>> I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to speci

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

On 12/02/2015 06:48 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 20:05 -0500, Ryan Burn wrote: Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for debugging? I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to specify "-O0 -g3" via the command line before running configure, but that only

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

Ryan Burn writes: > Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for > debugging? Set STAGE1_CFLAGS. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."

Re: building gcc with macro support for gdb?

On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 20:05 -0500, Ryan Burn wrote: > Is there any way to easily build a stage1 gcc with macro support for > debugging? > > I tried setting CFLAGS, and CXXFLAGS to specify "-O0 -g3" via the > command line before running configure, but that only includes those > flags for some of t

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On 20 February 2014 18:16, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> On 20 February 2014 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote: >>> (I counted nearly 100 (non-debug) >>> functions that could be made static in gcc, and 4 in libstdc++, by the >>> way.) >> >> Which wer

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 20 February 2014 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote: >> (I counted nearly 100 (non-debug) >> functions that could be made static in gcc, and 4 in libstdc++, by the >> way.) > > Which were the four in libstdc++? > > I only see __gslice_on_index a

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On 20 February 2014 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote: > (I counted nearly 100 (non-debug) > functions that could be made static in gcc, and 4 in libstdc++, by the > way.) Which were the four in libstdc++? I only see __gslice_on_index and __concat_size_t.

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

Patrick Palka writes: >> Maybe others will disagree and will think enabling >> -Wmissing-declarations would be a useful change, but I don't see the >> point. > > In my novice opinion, I think the flag helps keep source files tidy > and modular, and their interfaces well-defined. Its biggest benef

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 7:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 20 February 2014 10:02, Patrick Palka wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >>> On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote: On a related note, would a patch to officially enable -Wmissing-d

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On 20 February 2014 10:02, Patrick Palka wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote: >>> On a related note, would a patch to officially enable >>> -Wmissing-declarations in the build process be well regarded? >> >> What wo

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote: >> On a related note, would a patch to officially enable >> -Wmissing-declarations in the build process be well regarded? > > What would be the advantage? A missing declaration for an extern

Re: Building GCC with -Wmissing-declarations and addressing its warnings

On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote: > On a related note, would a patch to officially enable > -Wmissing-declarations in the build process be well regarded? What would be the advantage? > Since > -Wmissing-prototypes is currently enabled, I assume it is the > intention of the GCC devs

Re: Building GCC using C++

Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote: GCC has been building stages 2 and 3 in C++ mode for a while. The C++ compiler is created anyway since 4.7 and is used to build stage2+. Starting with GCC 4.8 stage1 requires a C++ host compiler. In GCC 4.7 you c

Re: Building GCC using C++

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote: > I was trying to understand the exact meaning of a loose statement > floating around ("gcc has moved to C++ from version 4.7 onwards). > > I reckon from http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx that now gcc is > compiled using C++. However, the ve

Re: Building GCC using C++

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:36:53AM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote: > > > Basile Starynkevitch wrote, On Tuesday 15 January 2013 11:34 AM: > >My belief is that it is no more possible to configure a recent GCC straight > >(non-cross) compiler without --enable-language=c++ > >(that is, if you ask only

Re: Building GCC using C++

Basile Starynkevitch wrote, On Tuesday 15 January 2013 11:34 AM: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:16:54AM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote: I was trying to understand the exact meaning of a loose statement floating around ("gcc has moved to C++ from version 4.7 onwards). I reckon from http://gcc.gnu.or

Re: Building GCC using C++

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:16:54AM +0530, Uday P. Khedker wrote: > I was trying to understand the exact meaning of a loose statement > floating around ("gcc has moved to C++ from version 4.7 onwards). > > I reckon from http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/gcc-in-cxx that now gcc is > compiled using C++. Howeve

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On 02/15/2012 03:24 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: Hi, On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 08:26:06PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released. It's extremely

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Hi, On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 08:26:06PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote: > On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: > > >>>Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must > >>>be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released. > >>> > >>>It's extremely unfortunate that this wil

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Toon Moene writes: > Thanks for the explanation. Is there a rationale document (and a design > document that explains what we have to expect from this change) > somewhere on the Debian web site ? > I couldn't find it, but perhaps I didn't search it right. The documentation that I'm aware of is

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On 02/10/2012 07:02 PM, Russ Allbery wrote: Anyway, I'll stop discussing this here, as it's not really on topic. I just wanted to provide some background, since I realize on the surface it's a somewhat puzzling decision. Thanks for the explanation. Is there a rationale document (and a design

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Andreas Schwab writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> For example, suppose I'm doing development on an amd64 box targeting >> armel and I want to use Kerberos libraries in my armel application. >> I'd like to be able to install the armel Kerberos libraries on my >> Debian system using regular package

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On 02/10/2012 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Russ Allbery writes: > >> For example, suppose I'm doing development on an amd64 box targeting armel >> and I want to use Kerberos libraries in my armel application. I'd like to >> be able to install the armel Kerberos libraries on my Debian system

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Russ Allbery writes: > For example, suppose I'm doing development on an amd64 box targeting armel > and I want to use Kerberos libraries in my armel application. I'd like to > be able to install the armel Kerberos libraries on my Debian system using > regular package management commands, just li

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Russ Allbery writes: >> The reason, for the record, is because Debian wants to be able to >> support multiarch with more than two architectures. The /lib32 >> vs. /lib64 distinction doesn't allow one to use the same underlying >> machinery to easily install, say, arme

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Russ Allbery writes: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: >> Nenad Vukicevic writes: > >>> Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the >>> following linking problem (no special configure switches): >>> >>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory >>> /usr/bin

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Nenad Vukicevic writes: >> Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the >> following linking problem (no special configure switches): >> >> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory >> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: No such

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On 02/09/2012 07:16 PM, Arnaud Charlet wrote: Yes. Debian moved everything for some reason. It's a problem that must be addressed somehow before gcc 4.7 is released. It's extremely unfortunate that this will make it impossible to build older releases of gcc on newer Debian installations. No

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

>>> Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the >>> following linking problem (no special configure switches): >>> >>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory >>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: No such file or directory >>> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On 09.02.2012 07:33, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Nenad Vukicevic writes: Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the following linking problem (no special configure switches): /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: N

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Nenad Vukicevic writes: > >> Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the >> following linking problem (no special configure switches): >> >> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory >> /usr/bin

Re: Building gcc on Ubuntu 11.10

Nenad Vukicevic writes: > Has anybody tried to build 4.7 on Ubuntu 11.10 system. I am getting the > following linking problem (no special configure switches): > > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crt1.o: No such file or directory > /usr/bin/ld: cannot find crti.o: No such file or directory > /usr/bin/ld:

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 10:42 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > > > I was wondering if anyone has built GCC using a CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) > > setting > > that causes GCC to generate code that is not compatibile with the default > > GCC output. Basical

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

Steve Ellcey writes: > HJ seems to have the way to make it work, set CC to 'gcc -mlp64' instead > of setting CC to 'gcc' and CFLAGS to '-mlp64' but that seems a bit > counter-intuitive to the meaning of the flags. '-mlp64' is an ABI-changing flag, so it is better to put it in CC, since you are,

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On Thu, 2010-05-06 at 00:36 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > On 05/05/2010 18:18, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > > During the build libiberty is built in 64 bit mode > > But *which* libiberty? Host, build, or target? That is a good question. I am building in obj and I have: obj/libiberty/libiberty.a

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On 05/05/2010 18:18, Steve Ellcey wrote: > During the build libiberty is built in 64 bit mode But *which* libiberty? Host, build, or target? > if I use --disable-bootstrap and build all-gcc then I don't have this problem. This could be an interaction with the cross-compile mechanism, may

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > On 05/05/2010 07:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Steve Ellcey  wrote: >>> >>> I was wondering if anyone has built GCC using a CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) >>> setting >>> that causes GCC to generate code that is n

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On 05/05/2010 07:42 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote: I was wondering if anyone has built GCC using a CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) setting that causes GCC to generate code that is not compatibile with the default GCC output. I am using # CC="gcc -m32" CXX="g++

Re: Building GCC & CFLAGS settings

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > I was wondering if anyone has built GCC using a CFLAGS (and CXXFLAGS) setting > that causes GCC to generate code that is not compatibile with the default > GCC output.  Basically, I am building GCC on ia64-hp-hpux11.31 where I set > CFLAGS a

Re: Building GCC

Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto: Angelo Graziosi writes: What it the best? DPD or BID? You neglected to mention which version of gcc you are building. The decimal float support is relatively new. Oops... it is the most updated for 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 If you are using an x86 processor, as you

Re: Building GCC

Angelo Graziosi writes: > What it the best? DPD or BID? The question is not appropriate for the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list, which is for gcc developers. It would be appropriate for gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any followups to gcc-help. Thanks. You neglected to mention which version o

Re: Building GCC 4.3.2 on powerpc-yellowdog-linux-gnu

> I'm trying to build (natively) GCC 4.3.2 on a > powerpc-yellowdog-linux-gnu. I have not yet managed to build it all > ('make bootstrap') but I found out that each of the following changes > (applied in the order specified) takes me further on: > > -- insert '#include ' in libcpp/include/line-map

Re: Building gcc with a non-gcc compiler (Was: old intentional gcc bug?)

> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 05:25:54PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> At Cygnus, in the early and mid- 90s, we did this routinely, starting >> with the native compilers shipped with various Unix variants. As Unix >> variants generally no longer come with a free (as in beer) compiler >> other

Re: Building gcc with a non-gcc compiler (Was: old intentional gcc bug?)

Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Index: fixincludes/configure.ac > === > --- fixincludes/configure.ac (revision 127373) > +++ fixincludes/configure.ac (working copy) > @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@ > AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(..)

RE: Building GCC 4.3.0 on Cygwin...

Dave Korn wrote: > Patch prepared, I'll finish writing it up and submit to the newlib list > later tonight, but first I'm going to have a celebratory beer or two on > the way home... I have applied the patch (http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2007/msg00292.html) an GCC-4.3 (core+gfortran) builds (

RE: Building GCC 4.3.0 on Cygwin...

On 22 March 2007 22:08, Brian Dessent wrote: > The real problem seems to be that the libgcc is broken: > > configure:2121: /home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./prev-gcc/xgcc > -B/home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./prev-gcc/ > -B/usr/local/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ > conftest.c >&5 > /home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./pre

[Solved] Re: Building gcc trunk on Darwin / Intel?

Hi Mike, >> I tried building gcc trunk on Darwin / Intel: > >> /datal/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h:244: unterminated comment >> or string; unexpected EOF > >You should be able to update and build now... Let us know if not. This worked for me. Thanks for the new toy. -- Mohan http://www.th

Re: Building gcc trunk on Darwin / Intel?

On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Mohan Embar wrote: I tried building gcc trunk on Darwin / Intel: /datal/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h:244: unterminated comment or string; unexpected EOF You should be able to update and build now... Let us know if not.

Re: building gcc

Bob Rossi wrote: > > Thanks Brendon, that was really helpful. I'm very new at this, and may > have some seemingly rather odd questions. I see that global_namespace is > of type 'union tree_node'. Is this the C++ language dependent AST? Yes, this is the C++ AST. I actually think it is just a supe

Re: building gcc

Bob Rossi wrote: Also, I noticed that converting it to html failed. Maybe this is a documentation error? Thanks again, Bob Rossi $ makeinfo --html ../../../gcc/gcc/doc/c-tree.texi ../../../gcc/gcc/doc/c-tree.texi:10: `Trees' has no Up field (perhaps incorrect sectioning?). makeinfo: Removing o

Re: building gcc

On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 02:16:01PM +1000, Brendon Costa wrote: > Bob Rossi wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > > > Basically, I want to use GCC with C,C++. I want to walk a tree that GCC > > creates for the translation units. I would like to know if for these two > > languages if I should use a language depende

Re: building gcc

Bob Rossi wrote: > Hi Ian, > > Basically, I want to use GCC with C,C++. I want to walk a tree that GCC > creates for the translation units. I would like to know if for these two > languages if I should use a language dependent tree, the generic tree or > the gimple tree. In general, I would like to

Re: building gcc

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:45:52AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hopefully I'll be able to debug gcc nicely after this is built. Two > > more questions that could save me a lot of time. Do you know where the > > abstract syntax tree is stored in GCC a

Re: building gcc

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:25:04PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:22:57PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > and the gcc that is put into prefixdir is compiled with -O2 and -g, > > which makes it hard to follow in the debugger. Anyone have a clue on how > > to compile gcc so

Re: building gcc

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:22:57PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > and the gcc that is put into prefixdir is compiled with -O2 and -g, > which makes it hard to follow in the debugger. Anyone have a clue on how > to compile gcc so only -g is used, and not -O2? Typically, I use the > CFLAGS trick, but it d

Re: building gcc

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 06:56:58AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > >In particular, I was just wondering how do compile GCC with debug. Not > > >how to debug it. I tried CFLAGS="-g" ./configure ..., but it still > > >compiled with gcc

Re: building gcc

Bob Rossi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hopefully I'll be able to debug gcc nicely after this is built. Two > more questions that could save me a lot of time. Do you know where the > abstract syntax tree is stored in GCC after a file is parsed? I'm not sure what kind of answer you are looking for

Re: building gcc

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 09:48:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >In particular, I was just wondering how do compile GCC with debug. Not > >how to debug it. I tried CFLAGS="-g" ./configure ..., but it still > >compiled with gcc -O2 -g. Anyways, if anyone knows a helpful configure > >trick that w

Re: building gcc

In particular, I was just wondering how do compile GCC with debug. Not how to debug it. I tried CFLAGS="-g" ./configure ..., but it still compiled with gcc -O2 -g. Anyways, if anyone knows a helpful configure trick that will help get me ready to debug gcc, please let me know. By default, GCC b

Re: building gcc

On Oct 11, 2006, at 6:27 PM, Bob Rossi wrote: In particular, I was just wondering how do compile GCC with debug. developers cd gcc && make. :-) Gotta love magic. If you've built it already, make clean && make.

Re: building gcc

On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 02:39:39PM -0700, David Daney wrote: > Bob Rossi wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'd like to build gcc with just the C/C++ front ends. Are there > >any configure options I could use to make only a minimum gcc > >build to get those 2 languages working? > > Take a look at the Fine docu

Re: building gcc

Bob Rossi wrote: Hi, I'd like to build gcc with just the C/C++ front ends. Are there any configure options I could use to make only a minimum gcc build to get those 2 languages working? Take a look at the Fine documentation that is available at http://gcc.gnu.org In particular looking at

Re: building gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20

> > Bug reports should be filed for these two problems. Do you have > > PHCO_20721 and PHCO_26158 installed? Locale might the behavior > > of awk in generating options.h. > > I have PHCO_20721 installed, but not PHCO_26158. And I just wasted > about a half hour of my life trying to *find* it.

Re: building gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20

> > Regarding the use of pthreads, that's strange. Without --disable-threads, > > GCC should use DCE threads on hpux10. GCC definitely knows about the > > threads available in HP-UX 10. See for example, gthr-dce.h. > > I have GNU pth installed in /usr/local, and (according to gcc/config.log) >

Re: building gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20

On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 02:53:47PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > > In order to build gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20 I had to install GNU awk > > and also configure with --disable-threads. The vendor's awk did not > > build the options.h file correctly; the exact symptom was duplicated > > OPT_d and

Re: building gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20

> In order to build gcc 4.1.1 on HP-UX 10.20 I had to install GNU awk > and also configure with --disable-threads. The vendor's awk did not > build the options.h file correctly; the exact symptom was duplicated > OPT_d and OPT_w symbols in the enum. Then, the build blew up when it > tried to use

Re: building gcc 4.0.1 using CAS (part of the sun v8plus arch)

Andrew B. Lundgren wrote: > Is there a macro I can ifdef on to check to see if I can use the v8plus > instructions, otherwise use the existing spinlock implementation? It looks like we have __sparc_v8__ and __sparc_v9__ but not a macro for v8plus. If you need one, you may have to add it. See CPP

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

> I meant when using GCC with the Sun assembler/linker, it shows up on > sparc. But it doesn't show up on sparc when using Sun cc with Sun > assembler/linker, and thus Sun doesn't document it as a sparc problem. OK, I misinterpreted "tools", thanks for the clarification. Yes, that is a very pla

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 10:22, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Apparently this problem only shows up for x86 when using Sun tools, but > > when using GNU tools, it also shows up for sparc. > Do you have a testcase? AFAIK the problem only shows up with the Sun tools. I meant when using GCC with the Sun ass

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

Hi, OK, I guess the latest compilers from Sun ship with a better "as". Unfortunately I'm stuck with Sun Studio One 7 for now. Maybe it should be documented that a recent version of "as" is needed by gcc. A version not affected by the bug. 4.0.0 bootstraps on Solaris 2.5.1 with as: WorkShop Compil

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

> I'm also using --with-gnu-as and --with-gnu-ld now. At some point these > were required or made a difference on HP-UX only as far as I can recall; > I hadn't noticed they were now required or making a difference on > Solaris too. They should not be required if --with-as and --with-ld are respect

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

Hi, BTW: Have you tried to also look at what ulimits are set on your system? I've rebooted the system and things are really getting better (even Sun's "ar" seems to be working now). This was a kernel problem, the kernel is not up-to-date with patches and the workstation hadn't been rebooted for

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos wrote: > > Yeah, in 1991 my 386 featured 4 Mb and I really see no reason why it could > > not > > be used to build libgcj nowadays. ;-) > > Ooops :-) > > These were indeed Gb instead of Mb for those wondering... [have not followed this thread, so

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

Yeah, in 1991 my 386 featured 4 Mb and I really see no reason why it could not be used to build libgcj nowadays. ;-) Ooops :-) These were indeed Gb instead of Mb for those wondering... -- Dimitri

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

> /usr/local/binutils/bin/ld [...] -soname libgcj.so.6 > [...] > GNU ld version 2.16 >Supported emulations: > elf32_sparc > elf64_sparc > /usr/local/binutils/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Memory > exhausted > > Ouch! 1 Mb RAM + 2Mb swap ought to be enough. Yeah, in 1991

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

Hi, Pass -debug to collect2. I'm not sure this will give you a *small* testcase though. /usr/local/binutils/bin/ld [...] -soname libgcj.so.6 [...] GNU ld version 2.16 Supported emulations: elf32_sparc elf64_sparc /usr/local/binutils/bin/ld: failed to set dynamic section sizes: Memory exh

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

> Actually I'd like to help fix bugs in the Solaris toolchain, apart from > compiling my C++ programs. > > Using "xgcc -v" instead of plain "xgcc" I've found that the problem > happens here: > /tmp/GCC/gcc/collect2 [...] /tmp/GCC/gcc/crtn.o -soname libgcj.so.6 > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Re: building gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris

> Actually I'd like to help fix bugs in the Solaris toolchain, apart from > compiling my C++ programs. > > Using "xgcc -v" instead of plain "xgcc" I've found that the problem > happens here: > /tmp/GCC/gcc/collect2 [...] /tmp/GCC/gcc/crtn.o -soname libgcj.so.6 > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

  1   2   >