Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Mon, 2008-01-21 22:55:26 -0800, Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 21, 2008, at 3:01 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: > > My understanding is that NetBSD port to the vax is very much alive and > > maintained. Thus, I expect that those users (eg Matt Thomas) would > > like > > to see the G

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 13:22:51 +, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > > The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > > of the deprecation

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Tue, 2008-01-22 10:31:35 -0800, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:49:19AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > >I work for a company that makes significant use of gcc to target vax. > > >The people involved are users, not developers, of gcc. Does any part > > >of the d

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 12:09:10 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do have a crude patch to ELFify the assembly parts. However, This was ment to be attached... MfG, JBG -- Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] +49-172-7608481 Signature of: Ich ha

Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

As we now reached the goal of less than 100 open serious regressions against GCC 4.3, we are as of now in regression and documentation fixes only mode. This means that for patches going on the trunk the same rules as for release branches apply. The next milestone before the release of GCC 4.3.0

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 12:18:31 +0100, Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-22 10:31:35 -0800, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So if you're a vax user, you can help keep the vax port alive by helping > > to test it, reporting bugs, and testing proposed fixes. That's n

bootstrap failed for GCC 4.2.3 on x86-unknown-linux-gnu

Hi, I tried bootstrapping GCC 4.2.3 on x86-unknown-linux-gnu with the following configure: /home/manuel/src/trunk/configure --prefix=/home/manuel/./131745/install --enable-languages=all --enable-decimal-float --with-mpfr=/home/ghazi/gcc-testing/lib/422-230/ But it failed. The last line

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As we now reached the goal of less than 100 open serious regressions > against GCC 4.3, we are as of now in regression and documentation fixes > only mode. This means that for patches going on the trunk the same > rules as for release branches apply.

Re: small changes of gdbinit.in

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:31:11PM +0800, Eric Fisher wrote: > I guess that the argument of the user defined command in gdbinit.in > should be $arg0. Also, due to the changes of the structure tree node, > ptc should be, No, the use of $ is deliberate. Print the value you want, then type ptc by it

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

Following my proposal for target architecture deprecations in 4.3 , I now propose the following list of individual targets to deprecate, based on the same methodology previously described. The patch to remove c4x and deprecate the previously discuss

RE: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Haley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:19 AM > To: Manuel López-Ibáñez > Cc: NightStrike; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals > > > I agree that weighing the user base doesn't make any > p

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

Richard, Will gcc 4.3.0's release be held up until all of the major architectures have fully optimized cost models for vectorization? I ask because as far as I can tell the powerpc cost model changes haven't been submitted yet. It certainly would be nice if all of the major targets could have -f

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Jack Howarth wrote: > Richard, >Will gcc 4.3.0's release be held up until all of the major > architectures have fully optimized cost models for vectorization? > I ask because as far as I can tell the powerpc cost model changes > haven't been submitted yet. It certainly wou

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * m680[012]0-*-* aliases for m68k-*-*. I see no activity using these > aliases and they appear fully equivalent to --with-cpu options that > already exist; anyone wishing the continue to use them can move them > to config.sub and make config.g

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:06 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > As we now reached the goal of less than 100 open serious regressions > against GCC 4.3, we are as of now in regression and documentation fixes > only mode. This means that for patches going on the trunk the same > rules as for release br

restrict keyword has no effect?

Hello, We are porting GCC 4.2.1 for our VLIW processor. To improve performance, support of restrict keyword is imperative. From what I learn from GCC documentation, "restrict" should be well supported since GCC3. Somehow, I found it doesn't improve schedule even for simple example. foo (int * res

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On 23/01/2008, Weddington, Eric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've been lurking on this list long enough to see the same questions, with > the same answers, every time the subject of target deprecations comes up. > > If it doesn't exist somewhere already, can the criteria that Joseph used be > s

Re: restrict keyword has no effect?

On Jan 23, 2008 8:18 AM, Bingfeng Mei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > We are porting GCC 4.2.1 for our VLIW processor. To improve performance, > support of restrict keyword is imperative. From what I learn from GCC > documentation, "restrict" should be well supported since GCC3. Somehow, > I

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

Richard, Just to clarify, does this mean that any architecture which doesn't have a fully optimized cost-model currently in gcc trunk will have to wait for gcc 4.4? I ask because the cost-model bugs wouldn't actually be a regressions from gcc 4.2. I mainly wanted to make sure that we didn't have

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote: > "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * m680[012]0-*-* aliases for m68k-*-*. I see no activity using these > > aliases and they appear fully equivalent to --with-cpu options that > > already exist; anyone wishing the continue to use

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> DJGPP, Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. > s390x-ibm-tpf* Similar. TPF is cross, and there's no simulators, so no test results, yet still active. >

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If config.sub already converts them to m68k, so that m680[012]0 never > appears in a canonical target name, then the code in config.gcc looking > for m680[012]0 in canonical target names is already dead. The proposed > alias deprecations relate o

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> * parisc*-*-*, alias for hppa*-*-*. Also apparently an unused alias > handled by config.gcc that should move to config.sub if desired. I'm happy to see this go. It's not checked for in the testsuite, etc. > HP-UX is only being tested on hppa, not IA64. I believe that Steve Ellcey is testin

MPFR 2.3.1 Release Candidate 2

The release of MPFR 2.3.1 is still imminent. Thanks very much to those who tested the first release candidate. As there have been significant changes, a second release candidate is necessary. You can download it here: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-2.3.1/mpfr-2.3.1-rc2.tar.bz2 http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-2

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, DJ Delorie wrote: > > DJGPP, > > Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness > doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think > we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. > > > s390x-ibm-tpf* > > Similar. TPF is cross, and there's

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 12:06:22PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > >As we now reached the goal of less than 100 open serious regressions >against GCC 4.3, we are as of now in regression and documentation fixes >only mode. This means that for patches going on the trunk the same >rules as for relea

Seperate the c front-end from GCC

Hi all, I have to use gcc's C parser and the intermediate representation, so that I can manipulate the basic blocks and CFG. So I need to plug out the parser and the intermediate code. I would like to know if it is possible to plug out the parser and the intermediate representation code. Did som

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

> Richard, >Will gcc 4.3.0's release be held up until all of the major > architectures have fully optimized cost models for vectorization? > I ask because as far as I can tell the powerpc cost model changes > haven't been submitted yet. At this point it doesn't look like there will be any cost

RE: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> -Original Message- > From: Manuel López-Ibáñez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:35 AM > To: Weddington, Eric > Cc: Andrew Haley; NightStrike; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals > > On 23/01/2008, Weddington, Eric <[EMAIL

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

395 /work/builds/gcc/current/iq2000-elf/gcc/xgcc version 4.3.0 20080123 (experimental) [trunk revision 131756] (GCC) [...] === g++ Summary === # of expected passes15563 # of unexpected failures295 # of expected failures 81 # of unresolved

Re: Mainline is now regression and documentation fixes only

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Jack Howarth wrote: > Richard, >Just to clarify, does this mean that any architecture > which doesn't have a fully optimized cost-model currently > in gcc trunk will have to wait for gcc 4.4? I ask because > the cost-model bugs wouldn't actually be a regressions > from gcc

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > Well the IQ2000 port is still of interest to us, and I am still happy > to maintain it, so here are some test results: On that basis I've removed it from my deprecation list, but results need to go to gcc-testresults in the form gene

gcc-4.2-20080123 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080123 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080123/ 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/branches

Question about past research in detecting compiler used to create executable binary

GCC Community, I am a PhD candidate at Auburn University in Alabama investigating automated compiler detection for reverse engineering. The reason I am contacting this mailing list is to see if anyone knows of research done to discover the compiler used to create a binary executable. Sincerely,

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:02 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > DJGPP, > > Please don't deprecate this. It's actively used, but the test harness > doesn't run under DJGPP so testing it is difficult. I don't think > we've *ever* run the testsuite for it. You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running else

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running elsewhere? I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing.

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing. If you're trying to at least test code generation, etc., you could treat the DOS system like a basic

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

> If you're trying to at least test code generation, etc., you could > treat the DOS system like a basic target board and cross-compile > tests and transfer them over a serial line to execute them. That's > the way it was done in the bad old days. Yeah, I remember those. > However, it's just oc

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:34:56AM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > > I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > > semaphores, or anything else that hints at multiprocessing. > > If you're trying to at least

2008 GCC Developers' Summit CFP closing soon

This is a quick reminder that the Call for Papers for the 2008 GCC Developers' Summit is closing on Friday, *February 1st*. Proposals are being accepted for papers, BOFs and tutorials (one or two hours duration). The proposal submission process now requires that you prepare a proposal, and a pers

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > There is good coverage for > bare-metal ELF targets, but none for bare-metal a.out and COFF targets > (perhaps we should consider deprecating all of those, on the > presumption that bare-metal use has moved to ELF and objcopy is likely > to be used in a

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

IIRC, the problem was in syncronizing *anything* between the Linux host and the DOS emulator. It's like trying to use NFS to syncronize two Xen instances, except with a flakey NFS and programs that don't know about concurrency. With Cygwin and DJGPP you have the problem of long command lines bei

Re: 2008 GCC Developers' Summit CFP closing soon

On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:47:18AM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > This is a quick reminder that the Call for Papers for the 2008 GCC > Developers' Summit is closing on Friday, *February 1st*. Proposals are > being accepted for papers, BOFs and tutorials (one or two hours > duration). The web site s

Re: Question about past research in detecting compiler used to create executable binary

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 16:48 -0600, Stephen Torri wrote: > GCC Community, > > I am a PhD candidate at Auburn University in Alabama investigating > automated compiler detection for reverse engineering. The reason I am > contacting this mailing list is to see if anyone knows of research done > to di

Re: Question about past research in detecting compiler used to create executable binary

On 1/23/08, Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also in the same file > > GCC: (GNU) 4.1.2 (Ubuntu 4.1.2-0ubuntu4) You can strip out the comment section so this information does not have to emitted either. And sometimes it can contain multiple versions depending on if you have a static libra

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, 2008-01-23 14:39:37 +, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * vax-*-bsd* > * vax-*-sysv* > * vax-*-ultrix* I'll start looking into the NetBSD target. There are other bits (OpenBSD and the non-BSD targets) but I won't work on those. It'll take some time to get the environment ri

Re: 2008 GCC Developers' Summit CFP closing soon

> The web site says only "June 2008". Does this mean that the dates have > not yet been chosen? I believe there are candidate dates, but they are yet to be finalised. Stay tuned. :-) Ben