On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are starting to use the lto branch internally for testing and we
> would like to have some degree of stability for the next few months.
>
> Currently, the lto branch is tracking 4.4, but we will soon move to
> stage 1, w
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 06:16, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not expect this to happen this year.
Sure. That still means 'soon' in our timeline. I was thinking before March.
Diego.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 20:52, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew is correct that the reason for putting both lto and final code in
> the same file was to do the least damage to peoples build tools. A
> change from each invocation of gcc produce two files instead of one will
> se
Am Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:01:35 -0600
schrieb Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 15:40, Ollie Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Diego Novillo
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> lto1 (even if -flto is not pro
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 20:52, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Andrew is correct that the reason for putting both lto and final code in
>> the same file was to do the least damage to peoples build tools. A
>> change from each invocation of gcc produce tw
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 08:33, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually think that the hybrid files should be the default. If you
> are willing to make invasive changes to your build environment to
> support two files, then you should be willing to add extra options to
> support tha
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 08:33, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I actually think that the hybrid files should be the default. If you
>> are willing to make invasive changes to your build environment to
>> sup
-- Forwarded message --
From: Niklaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Maybe g++ bug (in stl_algo.h 0x08048beb in std::__unguarded_partition)
To: gcc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hi,
This crashes on g++ 4.2.3. I think my code is correct. I'm not doing
any o
Niklaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This crashes on g++ 4.2.3. I think my code is correct. I'm not doing
> any out of bound errors but sort crashes.
Your comparison function does not meet the requirements of the standard
(inducing a strict weak ordering on the values).
Andreas.
--
Andreas S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17/10/2008 16:36:32:
> Hello,
> I tried to enable modulo scheduling for our target VLIW. It fails even
for the
> simplest loop. I would like to have a look at how GCC produces schedule
for
> other targets. I know that modulo scheduling relies on doloop_end pattern
to
>
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 3:12 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are starting to use the lto branch internally for testing and we
> would like to have some degree of stability for the next few months.
>
> Currently, the lto branch is tracking 4.4, but we will soon move to
> stage 1, w
H.J -
hmm.
That worked (thanks) but exactly why did it work? Shouldn't gcc be
smart enough to realize that it is working either with a c++ file or
linking to a c++ library?
Ed
It's part of a configure test as part of
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:24 PM, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat,
12 matches
Mail list logo
