I just took a closer look at this host OS configuration macro
variable and it's usage.
It turns out that the variable is only used in gcc/gcc.c under the guide
of the verbose flag to confuse the corresponding notice output with
what is actually used
by the compiler driver. The threading model
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Doing only one update_life_info_in_dirty_blocks before the
crossjumping makes the compilation time go right back to 0.95
seconds. If that works, is another question... if there are any
transformations that invalidate global_live_at_end, we'll have to make
them update
On Wednesday 11 January 2006 10:05, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> my opinion is that with -details, the passes should dump as much as
> possible while being readable, as this is the default level at that (at
> least) I work when debugging. If someone wants to see everything, he
> can use -all, I do not
On 1/13/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 January 2006 10:05, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
>
> > my opinion is that with -details, the passes should dump as much as
> > possible while being readable, as this is the default level at that (at
> > least) I work when debugging. If
For easier reviewing, I have attached the diff to the cfgcleanup
version previous to the patch backout.
I'm not sure what the best way to keep the svn history sane is. When/if
the patch is approved, should I first do an
svn merge -r108792:108791, check that in, and then apply the patch with
t
On Friday 13 January 2006 10:26, Richard Guenther wrote:
> What I like to have is a -fdump-tree-all-XXX that only dumps function
> bodies, not pass specific stuff.
>
That was the purpose of -fdump-tree-all, actually. But it's a convention,
and over time some passes have deviated from that conven
Peter:
> Well, it is a daily checkout, please try again to ensure that you did not
> miss the update on the 13th.. The Changelog for the version that is up
there
> now has:
> 2006-01-13 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ~* libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_COMPILER_PIC): Fix my forward por
Leif,
* Leif Ekblad wrote on Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 04:15:30PM CET:
> Peter:
> > Well, it is a daily checkout, please try again to ensure that you did not
> > miss the update on the 13th.. The Changelog for the version that is up
> OK, I saw it was just regenerated. (http://libtool.opendarwin.org/)
Ralf:
> GCC has its own in-house cranked-up version of 1.4.x libtool.
IOW, I need to tell them to synchronize with libtool, and then
they will eventually commit a new libtool.m4 to their project
and then I can check out if my modifications work or not?
Leif Ekblad
Hi Eric!
I agree, moving warnings on benign conversions to -Wconversion
would help groups porting large codebases from earlier versions of gcc.
As long as you're in that area, got any opinion on
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR9072
?
--
Wine for Windows ISVs: http://kegel.com/wine/isv
I've just recompiled GCC 4.0.2 for sparc-sun-solaris2.9 with fortran
language enabled. To test it, I found short hello world program on the
net (included).
If I produce 32-bit binary by simply using "gfortran hello.f", it
compiles, but the resulting binary exits immediatelly (no output). If
> So, the question is, did I broke something by attempting to have both
> 32-bit and 64-bit GMP library installed simultaniously? Did I miss
> anything needed to have both 32-bit and 64-bit GMP available on the
> system?
Do not install both 32-bit and 64-bit GMP, you only need one of them:
sparc-
Quoting Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So, the question is, did I broke something by attempting to have both
32-bit and 64-bit GMP library installed simultaniously? Did I miss
anything needed to have both 32-bit and 64-bit GMP available on the
system?
Do not install both 32-bit and 64-bit
> OK. But what if I want sparc-sun-solaris2.* compiler, and later
> want to compile some 64-bit app that links with GMP too (or the other
> way around)? I should be able to have both libs on system where
> multilib is supported option (such as sparc*-sun-solaris*).
The GMP developers are pro
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 08:56:13PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > OK. But what if I want sparc-sun-solaris2.* compiler, and later
> > want to compile some 64-bit app that links with GMP too (or the other
> > way around)? I should be able to have both libs on system where
> > multilib is supp
> GMP is used by the compiler, not by the application, so you only need
> the version that the compiler will use.
Right, that's what I previously said. :-) But Aleksandar apparently insists
on having both versions installed.
--
Eric Botcazou
Quoting Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
GMP is used by the compiler, not by the application, so you only need
the version that the compiler will use.
Right, that's what I previously said. :-) But Aleksandar apparently insists
on having both versions installed.
Well, I'm not insisting...
On 1/4/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is now PR c++/25663.
I propose reverting the fix for PR25439, which is accepts-invalid to fix
the breakage introduced, which is rejects-valid. At least on the branches.
I will do this in 48 hours.
Richard.
> Reload can temporarily produce a SUBREG of a MEM if, as the comment
> says, the insn has a SUBREG of a REG, and the REG is turned into a
> memory address. But before approving this patch, can you say
> something about what calls reg_overlap_mentioned_for_reload_p in this
> case? There are a nu
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
So, how would I now get a cc1plus/f951/jc1/cc1 binary compiled by the
stage0 (host) compiler?
make stage1-bubble STAGE1_LANGUAGES=c,c++,fortran,java
Wow, that's awkward.
I think that after I fix PR25670, as a side effect, you will also be
able to use the more intuiti
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060113 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060113/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 13 Jan 2006, Ben Elliston uttered the following:
>> I apologize if this question has already been answered but I would
>> like to know if there is a way to reuse the same config.cache file
>> for all the builds of all the subdirectories of a bootstrap ?
>
> It should be possible, but the config
On 13 Jan 2006, Eric Botcazou mused:
>> GMP is used by the compiler, not by the application, so you only need
>> the version that the compiler will use.
>
> Right, that's what I previously said. :-) But Aleksandar apparently insists
> on having both versions installed.
Doesn't Solaris have an e
Remind me why it's a good idea to force me to mess with bootstrapping
at all, when all I want is to build a copy of the compiler that I can
use for debugging problems? There has to be an easier way to do that.
My laptop builds stage1 reasonably fast, but a bootstrap takes several
> Remind me why it's a good idea to force me to mess with bootstrapping at
> all, when all I want is to build a copy of the compiler that I can use
> for debugging problems? There has to be an easier way to do that. My
> laptop builds stage1 reasonably fast, but a bootstrap takes several hours.
...and in cygwin boxes when you forget to remove the anti virus :)
By the way, thanks for you and Ben Elliston for the answers.
CJ
"Nix" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message de
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 13 Jan 2006, Ben Elliston uttered the following:
> >> I apologize if this question
When bootstrapping gcc revision 109670 in a i486-linux-gnu, libjava
compilation fails. I was able to reduce the problem to the generated cc1plus
producing an internal compiler error when compiling:
namespace java
{
class Object;
}
bool _Jv_ObjectCheckMonitor (int obj);
class java::Object
{
Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
When bootstrapping gcc revision 109670 in a i486-linux-gnu, libjava
compilation fails. I was able to reduce the problem to the generated cc1plus
producing an internal compiler error when compiling:
namespace java
{
class Object;
}
bool _Jv_ObjectCheckMonitor
Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
karma not having GCC working on the GNU system.
Thanks.
FWIW I personally think this toplevel bootstrap thing is a step
backward, now
typing "make" triggers such a complex machinery that nobody seems
to able to
understand what it does.
Please forgive my ginorace but I didn't consider the autoconf/
automake/gnumake mechanism
to be entierly trasp
On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 05:15:40PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >>So, how would I now get a cc1plus/f951/jc1/cc1 binary compiled by the
> >>stage0 (host) compiler?
>
> >make stage1-bubble STAGE1_LANGUAGES=c,c++,fortran,java
>
> Wow, that's awkward.
>
> >I think that
On 2006-01-13, at 23:59, Richard Kenner wrote:
Remind me why it's a good idea to force me to mess with
bootstrapping
at all, when all I want is to build a copy of the compiler that
I can
use for debugging problems?
Well install.texi explains in full lenght the wonders of the b
Steven Bosscher wrote:
... you can use --disable-bootstrap and do a regular make, or is there
some reason why you can't do that?
I wasn't aware of the option. Guess I'll do that, then.
Jason
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> ... you can use --disable-bootstrap and do a regular make, or is there
> some reason why you can't do that?
I wasn't aware of the option. Guess I'll do that, then.
I thought the point was that that option is temporary and will go away.
Did I misundersta
On Saturday 14 January 2006 01:42, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
> pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
> karma not having GCC working on the GNU system.
The usual process is that you post them to the g
Currently on trunk, decimal float is configured by default for
powerpc*-*-linux*. The testsuite check to decide whether to run the
dfp tests checks whether sample code compiles, not whether it also
links and runs. The runtime support isn't yet in although Ben Elliston
submitted it quite a while a
| OK?
yes.
| Did you want me to add this as a testcase?
yes -- so that we don't regress.
Ok. apparently I tested in the wrong directory and we already have a
few testcases that test whether we're emitting warnings. I've cleaned
up the testsuite (and added a quick patch to cvt.c to add a
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:13 AM, Dan Kegel wrote:
Hi Eric!
I agree, moving warnings on benign conversions to -Wconversion
would help groups porting large codebases from earlier versions of
gcc.
As long as you're in that area, got any opinion on
http://gcc.gnu.org/PR9072
FWIW I agree with Jose
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:58:14AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 01:42, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
> > pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
> > karma not having GCC wor
The usual process is that you post them to the gcc-patches mailing
list for review. And if they are approved, you can commit then or
you can ask someone to commit them for you. As far as I can tell,
you have never posted the patches. At least, there is no sign of
that in the PR au
Hello,
For an embedded mmu-less m68k target, I would like to generate code
that will always run at a fixed place in memory, thus not needing to be PIC,
but that would access a data+bss segment that could be anywhere in memory,
thus needing accesses to the data segment via %a5 and an offset table.
Nix wrote:
On 13 Jan 2006, Eric Botcazou mused:
GMP is used by the compiler, not by the application, so you only need
the version that the compiler will use.
Right, that's what I previously said. :-) But Aleksandar apparently insists
on having both versions installed.
Doesn't Solaris hav
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Reload can temporarily produce a SUBREG of a MEM if, as the comment
> > says, the insn has a SUBREG of a REG, and the REG is turned into a
> > memory address. But before approving this patch, can you say
> > something about what calls reg_overlap_mention
On Jan 13, 2006, at 8:18 PM, Alfred M.. Szmidt wrote:
Thanks, will do so later today.
But this seems very awkward for people who only send a patch ones in a
blue moon; and not much good info on that either, the manual just says
`report bugs to the bugtracker'; more or less.
Please read the w
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 1/4/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>This is now PR c++/25663.
>
>
> I propose reverting the fix for PR25439, which is accepts-invalid to fix
> the breakage introduced, which is rejects-valid. At least on the branches.
>
> I will do this in 48 ho
Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Remind me why it's a good idea to force me to mess with bootstrapping
> at all, when all I want is to build a copy of the compiler that I can
> use for debugging problems? There has to be an easier way to do that.
> My laptop builds stage1 reasonably fa
46 matches
Mail list logo
