On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 07:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Unless you're interested in Ada, I'd recommend trying with the GNU
> linker instead. I was getting good results with binutils 2.16 on 4.0
> at one stage, although I no longer have access to an IRIX system.
>
> (There's no intrinsic rea
Hello,
Sorry, maybe it's not appropriate to put this question here. But I need help.
Porting gcc involves the relocation and BFD porting. I've added some
relocate type.
But after linked, the address is not correct. Are there any documents
about the relocation. And what should I do?
Thanks.
Eric
Rainer Orth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which version of ld do you use? I'm having problems with MIPSpro 7.4.3m ld
> on IRIX 6.5.26f which fails to link cc1 in stage2 due to a GOT overflow.
> MIPSpro 7.3 ld on IRIX 6.5.10m is ok, though.
>
> I tried to report this (a regression from the 3.4 br
Laurent GUERBY writes:
> On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 07:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > Unless you're interested in Ada, I'd recommend trying with the GNU
> > linker instead. I was getting good results with binutils 2.16 on 4.0
> > at one stage, although I no longer have access to an IRIX system
Mike Stump wrote:
Look at the parser (gcc/cp/parser.c:cp_parser_handler) and set a break
point there, follow it down into semantic processing, pick a nice place
to do the checking, and then add the code to check it.
look at finish_handler_parms in semantics.c
For it to be accepted, others
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Unfortunately I removed the acats.log file. But I'm going to rebuild.
Rainer
Rainer Orth schrieb:
> Laurent GUERBY writes:
>
>
>>On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 07:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>
>>>Unless you're interested in Ada, I'd recommend trying
Hello,
> Just as an FYI, Kenny and I have replaced the global liveness analyzer
> with one from df.c, and removed the need for make_accurate_live_analysis
> (ie df.c now does the partial avail liveness stuff).
>
> We are currently in the process of changing all the other users of life
> analysis
Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> In the meantime I would be interested in any opinions people have on
> what level we should be writing things out at. Generic? Gimple? RTL?
Or just dumping plain C code? This is almost what the pretty printers
are doing, and the way back to the compiler is already ther
Hello,
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
What we need, in contrast, is some means to define an alias that
doesn't, by itself, cause an external definition of the symbol to be
brought in. If the symbol is referenced directly elsewhere, however,
then it must be defined. This is similar to the notion of we
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:33:01AM -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
> Could you compare your novel weak references to PECOFF's notion of "weak
> externals"?
>
> .weak sym1 = sym2 # Analogous to: .weakref sym1, sym2
>
> "If a definition of sym1 is linked, then an external reference to the
> s
> yeah, if it were in one of those books it could be added to the -weff-c+
> + option. It doesn't seem sensible to add a different option for an
> alternative (set of?) coding rule(s).
FYI this is item 13 in MEC++.
I think this would be a good error to have. My suggestion is to file an
enhanceme
On 13 Oct 2005, at 7:41 AM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
yeah, if it were in one of those books it could be added to the -
weff-c+
+ option. It doesn't seem sensible to add a different option for an
alternative (set of?) coding rule(s).
FYI this is item 13 in MEC++.
It is on just about any d
I just want to say I can't bootstrap gomp:
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/local/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -c
-g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
-Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wer
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:41:22AM -0500, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> > yeah, if it were in one of those books it could be added to the -weff-c+
> > + option. It doesn't seem sensible to add a different option for an
> > alternative (set of?) coding rule(s).
>
> FYI this is item 13 in MEC++.
-Wef
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Compiler version: 4.0.2
Platform: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
configure flags:
- --prefix=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/Linux/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/install
- --with-gnu-as
- --with-as=/SCRATCH/gcc-build/Linux/ia64-unknown-linux-gnu/install/bin/as
- --with-gnu-ld
- --
Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sorry, maybe it's not appropriate to put this question here. But I need help.
> Porting gcc involves the relocation and BFD porting. I've added some
> relocate type.
> But after linked, the address is not correct. Are there any documents
> about the reloca
Hello,
I've been investigating the failure of namelist_14.f90 -O0,
the last s390x-ibm-linux Fortran regression.
A much reduced test case is:
program test
type :: mt
integer:: ii(4)
end type mt
type(mt) :: t
t = mt ((/1,1,1,1/))
end program test
Compiling this p
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Costa wrote:
I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there was also a
separate switch for turning it on/off because:
We support fine grained warnings now. So, this isn't a problem.
Just be sure to mention you want a fine grained flag, and that
So can the existing set of warnings that -Weffc++ enables be broken
up into fine grained warnings quite easily?
Has it already been done?
On 13 Oct 2005, at 11:44 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Costa wrote:
I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there w
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
-Weffc++ is broken and should just die.
Or we can `modernize it' by removing those things we no longer agree
with, and document the bits of it that we don't like anymore in the
manual. Hopefully he'll release a new book with updated guidelines.
Thomas Costa wrote:
> So can the existing set of warnings that -Weffc++ enables be broken
> up into fine grained warnings quite easily? Has it already been done?
c++/16166
Paolo.
Mike Stump wrote:
> ... Hopefully he'll release a new book with updated guidelines.
The new, third, edition of Effective C++ is out.
Paolo.
On Oct 13, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Thomas Costa wrote:
So can the existing set of warnings that -Weffc++ enables be broken
up into fine grained warnings quite easily?
Yes. M-x grep warn_ecpp in gcc/cp/*, then replace:
warning (0,
with
warning (OPT_Weffc_12,
and then arrange for
> -Weffc++ is broken and should just die.
-Weffc++ should be made more useful, and able to be switched on a per-rule
basis.
If you search bugzilla for "Weffc++" you can get an idea of what are
considered useful improvements. I don't consider dated diatribes like
your previous email especially
I wrote:
> > -Weffc++ is broken and should just die.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 02:31:07PM -0500, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> If you search bugzilla for "Weffc++" you can get an idea of what are
> considered useful improvements. I don't consider dated diatribes like
> your previous email especially he
> See comment #4 to PR 12854. You state, correctly, that "The remaining
> bits that warn with -Weffc++ are either mandated by the standard, or
> required for performance/size reasons by ABI implementations."
Yep.
> That is, some aspects of -Weffc++ aren't compatible with the C++ standard;
> oth
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20051013 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20051013/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20051013
You'll
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Thus, i'm going to put an updated repo on gcc.gnu.org on Monday (i was
converting it
Could I request that:
svn ls svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/export/u0/gccsvn/gccrepo/branches | grep
-i apple
output a line or two (or five) before in a test repo be
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 15:54 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Thus, i'm going to put an updated repo on gcc.gnu.org on Monday (i was
> > converting it
>
> Could I request that:
>
> svn ls svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/export/u0/gccsvn/gccrepo/branches | grep
Hi,
Here is a bits of code from bzip2:
#define mswap(zz1, zz2) { int zztmp = zz1; zz1 = zz2; zz2 =
zztmp; }
void foo(int unLo, int unHi, int ltLo, int *ptr, char *block, int
med, int d, int n) {
while (1) {
if (unLo > unHi) break;
n = ((int)block[ptr[unLo]+d]) - med;
On Friday 14 October 2005 01:41, Evan Cheng wrote:
#(insn:TI 126 125 40 (parallel [
#(set (reg:SI 0 ax [71])
#(minus:SI (reg:SI 0 ax [71])
#(reg:SI 5 di)))
#(clobber (reg:CC 17 flags))
#]) 242 {*subsi_1} (insn_list:REG_DEP_TRUE 12
Thomas Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| That would be great and I will ask very, very nicely and offer to
| help any way I can however...
| I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there was also a
| separate switch for turning it on/off because:
|
| 1.) Last time I checked g++'s own
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| So please don't build anything new on top of this ill-considered warning.
Amen.
-- Gaby
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
| > -Weffc++ is broken and should just die.
|
| Or we can `modernize it' by removing those things we no longer agree
| with, and document the bits of it that we don't like anymore in the
| manual.
I find that t
[Sorry, pressed the wrong key combination again for the other mail... ]
On Friday 14 October 2005 01:41, Evan Cheng wrote:
> gcc produces the following code:
You're not giving enough information for me to reproduce it. I used
"-O2 -march=i686 -dAP" for the follow annotated assembler output:
#(in
Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| As you are well aware, GCC is part of the GNU project. It's all about
| freedom.
I understand that. But that should not prevent us from getting
perspective on -Weffc++.
-- Gaby
On Oct 13, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
Hi,
Here is a bits of code from bzip2:
#define mswap(zz1, zz2) { int zztmp = zz1; zz1 = zz2; zz2 =
zztmp; }
void foo(int unLo, int unHi, int ltLo, int *ptr, char *block, int med,
int d, int n) {
while (1) {
if (unLo > unHi) br
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 01:55:49AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> What I find the most annoying with -Weffc++ is not the rules
> themselves; but the fact that is that it is a set of guidelines
> designed for a *particular style* of programming in C++
That is, traditional OO programming.
> many
My question is: where and how would you suggest we do this
optimization. With peephole2? Or in combine? In i386.md, I see pattern
*subsi_2 looks like what I'd like to combine these two insn into:
(define_insn "*subsi_2"
[(set (reg FLAGS_REG)
(compare
(minus:SI (match_operand:SI 1
My question is: where and how would you suggest we do this
optimization. With peephole2? Or in combine? In i386.md, I see
pattern *subsi_2 looks like what I'd like to combine these two insn
into:
(define_insn "*subsi_2"
[(set (reg FLAGS_REG)
(compare
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 08:10:27PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> PowerPC describes the pattern were we don't need the result of n after a
> compare as:
Except that we *do* need the result of N after the compare in this case.
r~
I'm interested in duplicating the immediate predecessor basic block of the
EXIT_BLOCK, but this makes the EXIT_BLOCK have 2 predecessors which isn't
allowed. Can someone give me some guidances as to how I can insert a
bogus block between the two to allow the duplication?
Thanks,
Chad Rosier
FX Coudert wrote:
Attached patch changes the name of the language in --enable-languages
from "f95" to "fortran", and in a few other places. There are still lots
of places which are refered to as f95 (such as f951 ;-), but they are
all internal uses.
This happened a month ago. It just occured
What exactly are all of the new libgcc versions created when building
the current gcc cvs on MacOS X 10.4. I find that I have...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 20732 Oct 13 23:08 libgcc_s.10.4.dylib
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 20968 Oct 13 23:08 libgcc_s.10.5.dylib
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 24
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm interested in duplicating the immediate predecessor basic block of the
> EXIT_BLOCK, but this makes the EXIT_BLOCK have 2 predecessors which isn't
> allowed. Can someone give me some guidances as to how I can insert a
> bogus block between the two to allow the dupl
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> I'm interested in duplicating the immediate predecessor basic block of
>> the
>> EXIT_BLOCK, but this makes the EXIT_BLOCK have 2 predecessors which
>> isn't
>> allowed. Can someone give me some guidances as to how I can insert a
>> bogus block between the two to a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> I'm interested in duplicating the immediate predecessor basic block of
> >> the
> >> EXIT_BLOCK, but this makes the EXIT_BLOCK have 2 predecessors which
> >> isn't
> >> allowed. Can someone give me some guidances as to how I can ins
> I'm actually in the middle of building a fully merged + converted repo
> (IE exactyl what the final repo will look like, including the merge
> from old-gcc).
>
> It should be done in another 10 hours or less.
>
> I was planning to announce it and update the wiki's page so that those
> w
Hello!
I have two files: foo.c and main.c. foo.c is compiled with RVTC 2.2
compiler. main.c is compiled with gcc compiler (configured with
--target=arm-elf). I cannot link them together using gcc linker.
But it's possible to link files if I use CodeSourcery version of gcc.
CodeSourcery g
49 matches
Mail list logo
