Re: [Regarding GCOV].gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 09:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 07:47, Gejoe Daniel via Gcc wrote: > > > > Hi team, > > The following is my query posted but would need more inputs : > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 > > > > The gcov tool which was working so

Re: [Regarding GCOV].gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 at 07:47, Gejoe Daniel via Gcc wrote: > > Hi team, > The following is my query posted but would need more inputs : > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 > > The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch > where gcc is 11.4.0 and he

Re: [Regarding GCOV].gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

Am 25.04.2024 um 08:45 schrieb Gejoe Daniel via Gcc: Hi team, The following is my query posted but would need more inputs : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch where gcc is 11.4.0 and hence we wanted to

Re: Regarding OMPD

Hello Mohamed, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote: I am still interested in working on OMPD. Are there any plans for OMPD, soon? I think no one is currently working on OMPD or is planning to do so in the near future - but support for OMPD would be surely nice. It is surely to

Re: Regarding OMPD

On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:36:02PM +0200, Mohamed Atef via Gcc wrote: > I'm sorry for not getting back to you this long time. As I mentioned > The military service here is a must. Thank God I finished my military > service. > I am still interested in working on OMPD. Are there any plans for OMP

Re: Regarding bypass-asm patch and help in an error during bootstrapped build

Yup, I somehow missed it. Thanks, it is fixed now. Now we can test the addition of.symtab and symbols in both builds. Now I am moving toward the second part of the project, adding debugging information. Right now, I am going through the documentation. Will you recommend any other resources? -- Ri

Re: Regarding bypass-asm patch and help in an error during bootstrapped build

> Hi, > > I have added the patch ( > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-July/623379.html ) on the > devel/bypass-asm branch. > Although I am able to build using the --disable-bootstrap option but while > doing a bootstrapped build, I am getting these errors ( as warnings while > doing

Re: Regarding GSOC

Hello, please CC the mailing list on these discussions. On Fri, Mar 17 2023, Megha Raj wrote: > Thank you for your mail > Now I'm focusing on internal working of compiler > As having a rough idea is enough for the contribution or I need depth > knowledge?? that depends on the project but for man

Re: Regarding GSOC

Hello, On Mon, Mar 13 2023, Megha Raj via Gcc wrote: > Respected sir/mam, > > Actually I want to know what are skills you desire to have in the members > of your organization as I’m aware with c &c++ so, can you please let me > know other than this what knowledge should I know for getting selected

Re: Regarding gnu.org

Hi, So, what do you think? Regards, Mark Smith [image: Mailtrack] Sender notified by Mailtrack 07/29/22,

Re: Regarding __gcov_dump and __gcov_reset usage

@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Regarding __gcov_dump and __gcov_reset usage On 5/24/21 1:44 PM, Gejoe Daniel via Gcc wrote: > Adding gcc mailing list for the clarification. > > Thank you team !  > > From: "Gejoe Daniel"<gej...@rediffmail.com>; >

Re: Regarding GSOC

Thank you, I will do that. On Tue, Mar 26, 2019, 11:51 PM Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi Aniket, > > On Mon, Mar 25 2019, Aniket Agarwalla wrote: > > Hello Sir, > > > > I am interested in working with you in your shortlisted projects on Gsoc > > 2019 namely > > "Add new math.h and complex.h functions

Re: Regarding GSOC

Hi Aniket, On Mon, Mar 25 2019, Aniket Agarwalla wrote: > Hello Sir, > > I am interested in working with you in your shortlisted projects on Gsoc > 2019 namely > "Add new math.h and complex.h functions as built-ins". we are already in fairly advanced stage of putting together a proposal for the s

Re: Regarding GSOC Projects

Hello Aadrit, On Sun, Jan 20 2019, Aadrit Aggarwal wrote: > Greetings for the day!! > I'm an undergraduate in my 2nd year at Punjab Engineering College, > Chandigarh. I'm pursuing CSE. > This mail is regarding GSOC Projects. > > *It's my first time, that I'd be participating in an open source even

Re: Regarding projects and begineer guide.

Thanks, I'll check them out. On Thu 6 Dec, 2018, 1:51 AM Eric Gallager, wrote: > On 12/5/18, David Malcolm wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 22:48 +0530, Durgesh Kumar wrote: > >> Dear sir/mam > >> I am durgesh kumar from ABES engineering collenge,ghaziabad,uttar > >> pradesh,india. > >> > >> I

Re: Regarding projects and begineer guide.

On 12/5/18, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 22:48 +0530, Durgesh Kumar wrote: >> Dear sir/mam >> I am durgesh kumar from ABES engineering collenge,ghaziabad,uttar >> pradesh,india. >> >> I am currently in 2nd year of my graduation(Btech CSE ) >> >> I want to contribute in some of your

Re: Regarding projects and begineer guide.

On Wed, 2018-12-05 at 22:48 +0530, Durgesh Kumar wrote: > Dear sir/mam > I am durgesh kumar from ABES engineering collenge,ghaziabad,uttar > pradesh,india. > > I am currently in 2nd year of my graduation(Btech CSE ) > > I want to contribute in some of your prestigious project. So i > request you

Re: Regarding Google summer of code.

Hello Chaitanya, On Fri, Mar 02 2018, Sai Chaitanya wrote: > Hello, > I am Chaitanya.while checking the organisation for GSOC I am very > confused,sir I have skills in C,C++, Java and little bit of python,till now > I didn't take part in any big projects. > Please guide me which organisation and w

Re: Regarding x86 'sete' instruction and its corresponding RTL

> Thank you for your reply. I referred to section 13.10, and the description > there does not precisely specify the result of comparison with CC register. Quoting section 13.10: "There are two ways that comparison operations may be used. The comparison operators may be used to compare the condit

Re: Regarding x86 'sete' instruction and its corresponding RTL

Hi Eric, Thank you for your reply. I referred to section 13.10, and the description there does not precisely specify the result of comparison with CC register. Yes, you are right that as per the description, comparison with CC may not have anything to do with STORE_FLAG_VALUE. But it clearly says

Re: Regarding x86 'sete' instruction and its corresponding RTL

> > RTL: (set (reg:QI 0 ax) > (eq:QI (reg:CCZ 17 flags) (const_int 0))) > > Assembly: sete %al > > > Semantics of sete instruction is (as per Intel ma

Re: Regarding GCC Optimization flags and a customized profiler

Parang Saraf writes: > Expected Solution: 1. If you can point me to resources where I can > find more in-depth information about the optimization flags. Just the source code, unfortunately. At least it's complete. Ian

Re: Regarding the GCC Binaries and Build status pages

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> This is just a friendly letter. There probably will not be another GCC >> update from the Sunfreeware site ( which is still showing 3.4.6 ) for a >> long time now that Oracle has pulled finances

Re: Regarding code portability across different gcc/g++ versions

On 29 September 2010 08:07, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote: > Hi, > >   I presume this happens because the glibc with gcc 4.2.1 is smarter than the > one with gcc 3.2.2. Hence, what was missed during execution with 3.2.2 was > caught in 4.2.1 N.B. glibc does not come with GCC, you can generally use a new

Re: Regarding code portability across different gcc/g++ versions

On 29 September 2010 10:29, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/29/2010 08:07 AM, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote: >> Hi, >> >>     I had a big piece of code that ran smoothly on gcc 3.2.2. For >> some reason, I had to start using that code on a machine with GCC >> 4.2.1. Now, it would throw segmentation faults (inv

Re: Regarding code portability across different gcc/g++ versions

On 09/29/2010 08:07 AM, #SINHA SHARAD# wrote: > Hi, > > I had a big piece of code that ran smoothly on gcc 3.2.2. For > some reason, I had to start using that code on a machine with GCC > 4.2.1. Now, it would throw segmentation faults (invalid free pointer > etc) and abort the program. I pres

Re: Regarding the GCC Binaries and Build status pages

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Dear GCC Team : > > This is just a friendly letter. There probably will not be another GCC > update from the Sunfreeware site ( which is still showing 3.4.6 ) for a > long time now that Oracle has pulled finances. The same sad state of > af

Re: regarding optimization options in phase ordering

pms writes: > My question is as follwos > > We've a problem here. we were trying to use cc1 with & without -O option to > verify the optimizations happening in our sample code. > the sample code is given below > file name : 1.c > #include > int main() > { int a=5; > int b; > b=a; > printf(

Re: regarding optimization options in phase ordering

Thanx Ian, My question is as follwos We've a problem here. we were trying to use cc1 with & without -O option to verify the optimizations happening in our sample code. the sample code is given below file name : 1.c #include int main() { int a=5; int b; b=a; printf("the number is :%d",b);

Re: regarding optimization options in phase ordering

pms writes: > thanks, But b=a is a assignment statement. It is doing some memory operations > isn't it. Assuming b=a is a dead statement, how r the following i386 > assembly statements generated > pushl %ebp > movl%esp, %ebp > andl$-16, %esp > subl$16, %esp

Re: regarding optimization options in phase ordering

thanks, But b=a is a assignment statement. It is doing some memory operations isn't it. Assuming b=a is a dead statement, how r the following i386 assembly statements generated pushl %ebp movl%esp, %ebp andl$-16, %esp subl$16, %esp movl$5, 4(%esp)

Re: regarding optimization options in phase ordering

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:50 PM, pms wrote: > > Hi, >     We've a problem here. we were trying to use cc1 with & without -O > option to verify the optimizations happening in our sample code. these r the > list of outputs after each compilation > without -O > p...@shiva:~/Desktop/Compilers/GCC/build/

Re: Regarding

ashish mahamuni wrote: > Hi All, > > Can I know the list of file names in gcc source where > endianness support is implemented > > Yes, from the root of the gcc source tree do something like this: grep -r _ENDIAN * | grep -v .svn David Daney

Re: Regarding tree traversal

Yup, what you answered is indeed what I want Thanks, Anju

Re: Regarding tree traversal

On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Prabhanjan Kambadur wrote: I am new to this list, so please excuse any obvious mistakes. I am trying to check if two types are equal or one is derived from the other within the compiler. One of the types is a struct that is defined under the std namescope. How do I sea

Re: Regarding tree traversal

On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Prabhanjan Kambadur wrote: I am trying to check if two types are equal equal, what's that? :-) (That's a joke for the rest of the folks here. See the CANONICAL types work that Doug did recently for some of the more recent email threads.) One of the types is

Re: Regarding gcc Makefile.in

hi ashit, On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 15:39 +0530, Ashit Kumar wrote: > I am a newbie for GCC internals.Actually i want to build the GCC (say it > compile the GCC).Now during this i want to study the build process of it. a good starting point could be building gcc natively and looking at the build logs,

Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

Hello Paolo! > Heh, I'm quite at a loss regarding PR22480. I don't know exactly what > to do because i386 does not support, e.g. { 2, 4 } << { 1, 2 } (which > would give {4, 16} as a result). There is indeed a back-end problem, > because ashl3 is supposed to have two operands of the same mode, >

Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:24:26AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > 1) in the vectorizer, check in the optab if the predicate for each > operand of an insn accepts a register. If not, refuse vectorization if > the corresponding gimple operand is not constant. That sounds plausible, yes. > By the

Re: Regarding bug 22480, vectorisation of shifts

Uros Bizjak wrote (privately, but I forwarded to GCC in order to get help): Hello Paolo! I was looking at PR middle-end/22480 if there is something to fix at the i386 backend. However, there is no documentation at all regarding vec_shl_ and vec_shr_ builtins. Heh, I'm quite at a loss regar