Hello,
this is a real log of debugging GCC (with stage1 C miscompiling stage2
Fortran), including finding the miscompilation and fixing it. I hope it
helps understanding the way toplevel bootstrap works.
../configure
I just need two stages because I know that stage1 C miscompiles stage2
g++ no longer parses
ScalarCode >(CflFunctor(omrot, vis_f))(scratch,
I, cs, nue, v);
correctly, but issues
tramp3d-v4.cpp:53573: error: invalid declarator
which can be fixed by putting parantheses around the decl. Was this
change intended? It happened between r109062 and r109079, where
I just found this in tree-cfg.c; the comment is probably wrong with
respect to const and pure. What do you think?
/* Return true if we need to add fake edge to exit at statement T.
Helper function for tree_flow_call_edges_add. */
static bool
need_fake_edge_p (tree t)
{
tree call;
/* NORE
> I was compiling LZMA SDK (http://www.7-zip.org/, LzmaDecode.c) and just
> for curiosity I looked at output assembler. I noted that when PIC is
> enabled (-fpic, Linux Intel) ebx is reserved to global pointer. However
> LzmaDecode do not access any global data and do not call other functions
> (no
Hello,
I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
Best Regards
Tomas Bily
> Hello,
>
> This email is to follow up on your communication with the Free Software
> Foundation. Previously, you had expressed interes
> I just found this in tree-cfg.c; the comment is probably wrong with
> respect to const and pure. What do you think?
Yes, it should be safe to remove the hack now when we do IPA profiling.
Thanks for noticing it ;)
Honza
>
> /* Return true if we need to add fake edge to exit at statement T.
>
Dear Sirs,
Have you tried to build gcc 4.0.2 from the source on
Windows XP Pro?
Here is what I did.
1. Downloaded gcc-4.0.2.tar.gz.
2. Checked integrity of gcc-4.0.2.tar.gz using md5 and
jacksum.
3. Downloaded MinGW-4.1.0.exe.
4. Installed gcc version 3.4.2 (mingw-special).
5. Downloded and inst
hi,
On a target that supports delayed branches, i have the following code
generated by gcc-3.4.4:
Before dbr_schedule:
~~~
1- label1:
2- cmp r0,100
3- branch.eq label2
...
4- move r1, 0
...
5- label2:
Tomas,
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Tomas Bily via RT wrote:
> I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
> to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
I found the following in the copyright file on the FSF network:
GCC Tomas Bily United States 2005-
Tomas,
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Tomas Bily via RT wrote:
> I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
> to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
I found the following in the copyright file on the FSF network:
GCC Tomas Bily United States 2005-
Tomas,
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Tomas Bily via RT wrote:
> I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
> to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
I found the following in the copyright file on the FSF network:
GCC Tomas Bily United States 2005-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bootstrap failed in stage 3 on building gprmake:
../../gnatmake -c -I../rts -I.
- -I/raid/tecosim/it/devel/projects/develtools/src/gcc-4.2/gcc/ada gprmake
- --GCC="../../xgcc -B../../ -O2 -g -O2 -gnatpg -gnata"
../../xgcc -c -I./ -I../rts -I.
-
> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> .. there is no requirement that optimization preserve the behavior of
> undefined programs ... It is fine to argue that defining the semantics
> is useful in a particular case, but arguing solely from the point of
> view of trying to preserve observed beha
Paul Schlie wrote:
- however as promised I'll abstain from further debate as the community
seems satisfied with accepting the consequences of such optimizations.
I think you misunderstand, everyone agrees that defined and
deterministic semantics are
desirable, but also everyone (or perhaps
Richard Guenther wrote:
> g++ no longer parses
>
> ScalarCode >(CflFunctor(omrot, vis_f))(scratch,
> I, cs, nue, v);
>
> correctly, but issues
>
> tramp3d-v4.cpp:53573: error: invalid declarator
>
> which can be fixed by putting parantheses around the decl. Was this
> change intended?
Anatoly Krivitsky wrote:
>
> Have you tried to build gcc 4.0.2 from the source on
> Windows XP Pro?
>
I recently built gcc-4.1 snapshot successfully on Windows XP. I will list down
the steps I followed, they should work with the 4.0.2 version also. Note that
gcc build instructions discoura
Hi Rainer, this is PR24994:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24994
And is under investigation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01756.html
Laurent
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 16:52 +0100, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bootstrap fai
On Jan 1, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Frediano Ziglio wrote:
I noted that when PIC is enabled (-fpic, Linux Intel) ebx is
reserved to global pointer. However LzmaDecode do not access any
global data and do not call other functions (no relocations at all)
so why not use ebx register?
This is a known
On Dec 31, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Paul Schlie wrote:
be able define NULL as being some value other than 0.
Do you have a specific chip in mind you want to do this for? Why
would you want to do this? How many users would benefit from having
done this?
- enable the specification of arithmetic
On Jan 1, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Paul Schlie wrote:
- x[y] = 0;
if (x[y]) y = y+1;
And how does this differ from the portable code in which x points to
volatile data? If none, what are the advantages in being able to
write non-portable code that leaves the volatile out over standard
conform
Hi Gerald,
> Tomas,
>
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Tomas Bily via RT wrote:
> > I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
> > to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
>
> I found the following in the copyright file on the FSF network:
>
> GCC Tomas Bily
> From: Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Dec 31, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> be able define NULL as being some value other than 0.
>
> Do you have a specific chip in mind you want to do this for? Why
> would you want to do this? How many users would benefit from having
> done thi
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I think that this is all complicated enough that we should
> simply deny peepholing insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set.
I was just bitten by the same behavior for define_split.
Should the same go for define_splits and maybe also as a guard
test for c
Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > I think that this is all complicated enough that we should
> > simply deny peepholing insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set.
>
> I was just bitten by the same behavior for define_split.
> Should the sa
On 1/2/06, Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - at the most basic level, I feel like I've too often needlessly wasted
> time debugging programs at one level of optimization, to only see a
> different behavior needlessly expressed at a different level of
> optimization (which I understan
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I wouldn't expect to see any insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set before
> the prologue and epilogue are threaded in the flow2 pass. So combine
> shouldn't be an issue. And flow2 calls split_all_insns before the
> prologue and epilogue insns are threade
26 matches
Mail list logo
