> Yes. AFAICT, it's intra .exp concurrency that's causing this.
>
Now that I think of it, maybe the problem is that file foo_0.c is
going to one job and foo_1.c is going to another?
> Diego.
>
Cheers,
--
Rafael Avila de Espindola
Google | Gordon House | Barrow Street | Dublin 4 | Ireland
Reg
Hi,
> Should this be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
A patch doing that is essentially preapproved if you can confirm that in
the meanwhile the malloc bug (Radar 3884894) has been fixed for
i386-apple-darwin and not for powerpc64-apple-darwin. Can you do that?
Thanks,
Paolo.
On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 00:39 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Quality Data
> >
> >
> > Priority # Change from Last Report
> > --- ---
> > P1 1
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/11/2008 20:54:19:
> 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]>
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM, Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 00:39 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Quality Data
>> >
>> >
>> > Priority # Change from Last
This option has been problematic and does not seem to be well
maintained. In terms of usefulness, it would also be worth
implementing as a gimple pass, ideally in IPA mode. I propose that we
remove it at the next stage 1, at least it will stop causing problems.
Thoughts?
Diego.
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This option has been problematic and does not seem to be well
> maintained. In terms of usefulness, it would also be worth
> implementing as a gimple pass, ideally in IPA mode. I propose that we
> remove it at the next st
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
> > Should this be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
> A patch doing that is essentially preapproved if you can confirm that in
> the meanwhile the malloc bug (Radar 3884894) has been fixed for
> i386-apple-darwin and not for po
Today I happened across something that made me scratch my head.
Perhaps you can help me understand. Or maybe it's a bug.
ada.h contains the following preprocessor juju:
#ifdef __STDC__
#define CAT(A,B) A##B
#else
#define _ECHO(A) A
#define CAT(A,B) ECHO(A)B
#endif
For the non-__STDC__ case, w
hi,
I noticed that a number of benchmarks I use to run to test my library run
about 10% slower with gcc-4.3.1 compared to gcc-4.2.3. Would someone here be
interested on more details, or is this normal ?
Thanks (please forward any reply ro myself since I'm not subscribed)
--
Marco Correia <[EMA
Hi,
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 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
> "andrew" == andrew m goth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
andrew> For the non-__STDC__ case, why is the macro called _ECHO on
andrew> one line and ECHO on the next?
Given that GNAT can only be compiled with GNAT, I bet the non __STDC__
case has not been exercized for years and can simply be rem
Hi,
I'm trying to compile a Position Independent Executable with a TLS but
gcc doesn't generate the expected code (at least, what i expect).
Here's an example:
__thread int test_loc;
void func()
{
test_loc = 2;
}
I compile the object with:
CFLAGS=-nostdinc -nostdlib -fno-builtin \
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Marco Correia
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
>
> I noticed that a number of benchmarks I use to run to test my library run
> about 10% slower with gcc-4.3.1 compared to gcc-4.2.3. Would someone here be
> interested on more details, or is this normal ?
>
See
http
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:28 AM, Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 19/11/2008 20:54:19:
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 P
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 05:28:16PM +0100, Joel Porquet wrote:
> Gcc is using local-exec tls model instead of global-dynamic. The
> option -fpie is supposed to act as -fpic though (dixit the manual).
> Here is the first problem...
Could you explain the problem with this? The choice of local-exec v
Manuel Lauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Admittedly my understanding of mips assembly is not yet very advanced, am I
> missing something or is this a bug?
Well, it's a missed optimisation, certainly. Fortunately,
it's conceptually fairly easy to fix. I'll have a go.
Richard
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20081120 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20081120/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
Should this be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
A patch doing that is essentially preapproved if you can confirm
that in
the meanwhile the malloc bug (Radar 3884894) has been fixed for
i386-apple-darwin and not for powerpc
There has been some discussion here of GCC's reputation and of how to
classify bugs.
This bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26854
has gradually morphed from a compile-time issue to a space issue; if
it's not fixed for 4.4 (and it appears that it will not be fixed in
that tim
Hi,
First sorry for crossposting, but someone said I should post here, so
here we go:
I am working on x64 SEH for ReactOS. The idea is to use .cfi_escape
codes to mark the code positions where the try block starts / ends and
of the except landing pad. The emitted .eh_frame section is parsed after
> -Original Message-
> From: Diego Novillo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:56 AM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: [RFC] Remove -frtl-abstract-sequences in 4.5
>
> This option has been problematic and does not seem to be well
> maintained. In terms of us
2008/11/20 Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>> 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 st
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Alexey Salmin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/11/20 Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, H.J. Lu wro
24 matches
Mail list logo
