Hi all,
I am getting libmudflap crash test failures like this,
any help will be appreciated.
FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail1-frag.c crash test
FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail10-frag.c crash test
FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail11-frag.c crash test
FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail12-frag.c crash test
FAIL: libmudflap.c/f
"David Edelsohn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/11/2008 18:45:06:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to bootstrap with -ftree-parallelize-loops=4 enabled
(passed as
> > BOOTCFLAGS).
> > I'm failing at the begining of stage2 b
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm seeing a few performance regressions similar to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315 in a port where I'm
working off the 4.3 branch. These regressions are caused by the
decision to stop iterating DOM on identifying
I've noticed some spurious failures in the lto tests (g++.dg/lto and
gcc.dg/lto). They only occur with -jN. The symptom is an error
message from ld complaining that a .lto.ltrans.o file is missing. I
think this is a bug in the lto.exp script because the tests work fine
with -j1.
I'll be taking
Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
Hi Jeffrey,
I'm seeing a few performance regressions similar to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32306 and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33315 in a port where I'm
working off the 4.3 branch. These regressions are caused by the
decision to stop
checking for ld used by /mnt/./gcc/xgcc -B/CDRTest/jay/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/lib/ -isys
tem /usr/local/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/include -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/sys-include... (cached)
/mnt/test/./gcc/collect-ld
checking
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can I build the target libraries without libgomp, and enable
> parallelization only from stage2?
The target libraries (libfortran, libstdc++, libgomp, etc.) are built
after all of the
compiler languages are built -- all
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You can test -ftree-parallelize-loops building GCC with an installed version
>> of GCC, but not as a three-stage bootstrap.
>
> Except you can c
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can test -ftree-parallelize-loops building GCC with an installed version
> of GCC, but not as a three-stage bootstrap.
Except you can change libgomp into a target library that gets
bootstrapped though. Just like lib
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:48 AM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:40 AM, David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> You can test -ftree-parallelize-loops building GCC with an insta
Please ignore previous email. I had modified some path in the output
(for any possible violations of any kind)
But looks like i overlooked some of them. This has all paths correct.
checking for ld used by /mnt/./gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/./gcc/
-B/usr/local/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/bin/
-B/usr/local/powerpc-
Hello,
Please consider this little snippett of code:
- 8< -- 8< --
#define AU1000_INTC0_INT_BASE 8
#define IC0_FALLINGCLR 0xb0400078
#define IC0_RISINGCLR 0xb040007c
static inline void au_writel(unsigned long d, unsigned long a)
{
*(unsigned long *)(a) =
"mal reddy y" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am getting libmudflap crash test failures like this,
> any help will be appreciated.
> [...]
> FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail1-frag.c crash test
> FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail10-frag.c crash test
> FAIL: libmudflap.c/fail11-frag.c crash test
> [...]
All these tes
I'm getting the following failure on powerpc64-apple-darwin9.5.0:
Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to :/Users/lucier/programs/gcc/objdirs/
mainline/gcc:/Users/lucier/programs/gcc/objdirs/mainline/powerpc64-
apple-darwin9.5.0/./libstdc++-v3/src/.libs::/Users/lucier/programs/gcc/
objdirs/mainline/gcc:/Us
PR 35107 appears to have regressed on mainline. It was originally fixed
on the trunk and 4.3 back in February:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35107
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00187.html
The summary is that gmp and mpfr and unnecessarily linked into all
executables
> Following (bit weird ;-) code shows weird case of variadic template
> function specialization, however I am not sure it is legal, (atleast I
> haven't found any wording that would prevent such use):
This list is not really the place to discuss language issues (unless you
think you've found a bug
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20081119 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20081119/
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
> I've noticed some spurious failures in the lto tests (g++.dg/lto and
> gcc.dg/lto). They only occur with -jN. The symptom is an error
> message from ld complaining that a .lto.ltrans.o file is missing. I
> think this is a bug in the lto.exp script because the tests work fine
> with -j1.
I ass
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 17:51, Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I assume you mean when running make -jN check-gcc? Concurrency between
> various .exp scripts should not cause you any problems, as each make
> check is run in its own testsuite directory.
Yes. AFAICT, it's intra .exp conc
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quality Data
>
>
> Priority # Change from Last Report
> --- ---
> P1 13 - 4
> P2 114 - 27
> P33 +- 0
2008/11/19 Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Following (bit weird ;-) code shows weird case of variadic template
>> function specialization, however I am not sure it is legal, (atleast I
>> haven't found any wording that would prevent such use):
>
> This list is not really the place to discuss l
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
I used malloc to create my arrays instead of creating the in the stack. My
program is working now but it is very slow.
I use two-dimensional arrays. The way I access element (i,j) is:
array_name[i*row_length+j]
The server that I use has 16GB ram. The ulimit
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>> I used malloc to create my arrays instead of creating the in the stack.
>>> My program is working now but it is very slow.
>>>
>>> I use two-dimensional arrays. The way I acce
23 matches
Mail list logo
