Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
>> affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case of
>> 'gcc takes forever to compile this program' does
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:10 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
> >> affects people who compile the compiler; but the more gene
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What you say is true. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>
> Let me point out the important part again: All I ever see people
> suggest is magic bullets.
>
> We should try, but by doing the hard work. Not by expecting magic.
Sure. CodeSourcery did hav
>>> The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
>>> to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
>>> successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
>>>
>> Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
>>
>Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want "make" to complete
>instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
have to repeat a few steps (build gcc
On 2005-04-27, at 21:57, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
may not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared abou
> "Paul" == Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Maybe. Then again, maybe there are real problems here. The ranlib
Paul> one was already mentioned. And I wonder if libjava really needs to
Paul> bring the host to its knees, as it does.
Killing machines is only a secondary goal, if
David Gressett wrote:
The attempt to make HTML documentation crashes:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `html'. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make: *** [html-target-libada]
On 2005-04-28, at 03:06, Peter Barada wrote:
Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want "make" to complete
instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain,
On 2005-04-28, at 01:35, Joe Buck wrote:
I will agree with you on this point, but more than half of the time
to bootstrap consists of the time to build the Java library, and
speeding
that up is a losing battle, as Sun keeps adding new stuff that
libgjc/classpath is then expected to clone, and the
On 2005-04-27, at 22:54, Karel Gardas wrote:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,456,727
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 725.95
(8,711.36)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)
On 2005-04-22, at 16:30, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does anyone read the installation instructions?
Yes, but not everyone. And even people that read the docs can miss
the info if they can't figure out which part of the docs they a
Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --exec-prefix=/usr/local --program-prefix=ppc-
--with-stabs -with-cpu=603 --target=powerpc-eabi --with-gnu-as=ppc-as
--with-gnu-ld=ppc-ld --enable-languages=c,c++
Try adding --with-newlib. You either have to use a combined tree so
that newlib will be a
zouq wrote:
> i found madd instruction in mips.md, but why when i compiled it with
> my cross-compile mipsel-linux-gcc as follows, mipsel-linux-gcc -mips4
> -O2 test.c -S i can`t find any madd instruction in test.s??
Basic questions like this are really more appropriate for the gcc-help
list. The
Peter Barada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
> available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc ne
>> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
>> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
>> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
>> available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc needing -lgcc-eh), so
>> even really fa
Peter Barada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
>>> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
>>> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
>>> available(such as gcc needing headers, and
The SC has decided to add Mike Stump as maintainer of the Darwin
port, joining Stan Shebs and Dale Johannesen. Thanks for
volunteering, Mike, and please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS
file in the appropriate spot.
Hi,
I am using a cross compiler "sparclet-aout-gcc". I have written my own
main function and does not link to libgcc's main function while
linking is done. I m not able to initialize the global objects The
generated executable format is "a.out".
For example:
when I execute the following program
101 - 119 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
