RE: Help required - ICE in GCC for my target

Hi Delorie Thank you very much for your reply. I have made the changes as you have mentioned, but I am getting same error. Could you please guide where I can look into Thanking you in advance Regards Shrirang Khisti KPIT Cummins Infosystems Ltd. -Original Message- From: DJ Delorie

gcc-4.2-20051201 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.2-20051201 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20051201/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

successfully built and installed GCC version 4.0.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu Debian Sarge 3.1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 successfully built and installed GCC version 4.0.2 on i686-pc-linux-gnu Debian Sarge 3.1 all languages enabled # ./config.guess i686-pc-linux-gnu # ./gcc-4.0.2 -v Es werden eingebaute Spezifikationen verwendet. Ziel: i686-pc-linux-gnu Konfiguriert

Re: SVN Problem?

svn switch --relocate {svn://,svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc Thanks. I doubt I would have come up with that one on my own! :-) Oh, that's just shell expansion for svn switch --relocate svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc \ svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc BTW Dan, though Jeff did not see it

GCC-3.4.6 status

Hi, gcc-3_4-branch is open again for regression-fix patches only. Thanks, -- Gaby

[4.0 Regression + Patch] PR23282

Hi, PR23282 is a wrong code generation bug that shows up in trivial C code (see comment 2) at -O1. Since a few weeks, there has been a small patch attached to the PR (tested on mainline/4.1 since june see PR22442) that also fixes the problem for 4.0 (I tested _4_0_1_release). I think that th

weakref and static

The 'weakref' attribute is defined in terms of aliases. Now, if the user writes void foo(void) { } void bar(void) __attribute__((alias ("foo"))); then that causes 'bar' to be defined. Other translation units can use 'bar'. If 'weakref' is to define an alias, it should behave the same way. Un

fold_build1 (NOP_EXPR, ...) vs. fold_build1 (CONVERT_EXPR, ...)

It looks like it is safe to exchange both of them (the first one for sure) to fold_convert (...) due to the fact that fold_unary handles NOP_EXPR the same way than CONVERT_EXPR apart from cases that look like oversights, f.i. /* Convert (T1)((T2)X op Y) into (T1)X op Y, for pointer types T1

Re: Help required - ICE in GCC for my target

> Could you please guide where I can look into You're going to have to just debug it.

Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c

> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:42:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> RTH is listed as the author of a lot of those bits, so perhaps he knows >> more? > The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe > that Torba

Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c

> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Richard Henderson wrote: >> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe >> that Torbajorn's does. I don't recall if Torbajorn's code allows >> for emulation of all rounding modes or exception bits. > I believe i

MS1 backend not listed in backends.html

Hi Aldy, The MS1 backend is not listed in http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html. Could you please add it? Gr. Steve

Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c

Aldy Hernandez wrote: > There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing > the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the > glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL disparity. Do you happen to have a pointer, or a copy of that message? If that route

Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c

BTW, here is the original thread I had started: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00695.html > > There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing > > the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the > > glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL dispar

Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c

Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Argh... I've grepped all over my harddrive, but can't find it. But > I *am* sure I sent a mail to rms explaining the whole thing, and he > responded positively. Perhaps he can remember the conversation? Thanks for looking. I can ask him, if that route looks best. At th

Re: MS1 backend not listed in backends.html

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:18:20PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Hi Aldy, > > The MS1 backend is not listed in http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html. > Could you please add it? This is what I have. Nathan, how does this look to you? Index: backends.html

Re: MS1 backend not listed in backends.html

Aldy Hernandez wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:18:20PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: Hi Aldy, The MS1 backend is not listed in http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html. Could you please add it? This is what I have. Nathan, how does this look to you? I think the line should be + ms1 | S

Re: MS1 backend not listed in backends.html

> I think the line should be > + ms1 | S F B p g bd Argh, I misread "does not" for "does". Ok, committing the following. Index: backends.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/backends.html,v retrieving revision

Re: new c++ restrictions?

Jack Howarth wrote: For the last few months, gcc 4.1 has had problems compling the following code in posRMSDPot.cc in xplor-nih... without a full test case we have no clue. nathan -- Nathan Sidwell:: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED]::

Re: [C++] cp_token::type and cp_token::keyword

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > In cp/parser.c:cp_parser_declaration(), we have the following code > > /* Try to figure out what kind of declaration is present. */ > token1 = *cp_lexer_peek_token (parser->lexer); > > if (token1.type != CPP_EOF) > token2 = *cp_lexer_peek_nth_token (parser->le

Declaration of flags in 4.0.2

Hi, Where're these flags defined in 4.0.2? flag_syntax_only flag_mudflap "grep -inr ." in the source root didn't return any declarations. Thx. Domagoj -- ___ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

Re: Declaration of flags in 4.0.2

"Domagoj Flanks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Where're these flags defined in 4.0.2? > > flag_syntax_only > flag_mudflap They are defined in the file common.opt. Ian

gcc-4.0-20051201 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.0-20051201 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20051201/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

ARM spurious load

The following code snippet produces code that loads a register, r5, from memory, but never uses the value. The code is correct though, so not a major issue. In addition, it never uses r3 or r12, which are "free" registers, in that they don't have to be saved by the callee. For a one line function t

Documentation for 4.0.2

Hi, Any chances that the GCC Internals documentation will be updated any time soon? http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/ There have been a lot of changes in GCC and it's hard to figure out the code by reading the old documentation and the new incomplete 4.0.2 draft. Thx. Domagoj -- ___

Re: fold_build1 (NOP_EXPR, ...) vs. fold_build1 (CONVERT_EXPR, ...)

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Richard Guenther wrote: > It looks like it is safe to exchange both of them (the first one for sure) > to fold_convert (...) due to the fact that fold_unary handles NOP_EXPR > the same way than CONVERT_EXPR apart from cases that look like oversights, > ... > In fact, I remember

FAIL: gcc.dg/sparc-ret.c scan-assembler

Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0b2 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u: binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5.sparc bison-1.875c-2.sparc dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch expect-5.42.1-1.sparc gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc gcc4-4.0.0-0.8sparc.sparc glibc-2.3.3-99.sparcv9 glibc-devel-2.3.3-99.sparc glibc-headers-2.3.3-99.sparc