On 18/01/2009, Dave Korn wrote:
> Andy Scott wrote:
>
> > Again stage3 part of build, and this is what actually stops the build
> > the above issue doesn't seem to (I think it happens in stage 2), I get
> > the following:
> >
> >
>
>
> < a few more lines of log deleted :) >
>
>
> > ../../.
Hi,
I am still trying to generate a cross-compiler targeting wince-pe from
trunk.
Last time it seems nobody was able to answer so now I am going to ask
simpler questions :
1) When I compile bootstrap gcc, I am using make all-gcc and make
install-gcc and it seems it doesn't build libgcc anymore.
I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
$ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1eed56d439 gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
$ md5sum gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
cc3c5565fdb9ab87a05ddb106ba0bd1f gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
Can someone confirm/fix this?
Thanks!
Andrew Walrond
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>
> $ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>
> d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1eed56d439 gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>
> $ md5sum gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
> cc3c5565fdb9ab87a05ddb106ba0bd1f gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>
> Can som
Hi,
I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of
code. This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions
are defined "static" and not otherwise. On investigating further on
this, i see that the inline_functions_called_once seems to rely only on
"cgraph_c
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>>
>> $ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1eed56d439 gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> $ md5sum gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hariharan wrote:
>> Hi,
>> I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of code.
>> This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions are
>> defined "static" and not ot
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Hariharan wrote:
> Hi,
> I ran into some code-size/stack size bloat using -Os for a piece of code.
> This seemed to happen only when certain single call-site functions are
> defined "static" and not otherwise. On investigating further on this, i see
> that the inli
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:37 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>>> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>>>
>>> $ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>>
>>> d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1e
MPFR 2.4.0 ("andouillette sauce moutarde") is now available for download
from the MPFR web site:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-2.4.0/
Thanks very much to those who sent us bug reports and/or tested the release
candidate.
md5sum :
f5916d785d4f7e7282057f6a3ebff9ce mpfr-2.4.0.tar.bz2
6a6162517d7e4f
Rodolfo Lima wrote:
When the time to get the hands dirty arrives, I'll need to know if
somebody's working off-branch on some parts to avoid unnecessary work.
I don't think anyone is working on it at the moment; since Apple hired
Doug Gregor he isn't working on GCC at all anymore.
I also kno
Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
In my efforts to build C++-0X library components I've noticed that
constexpr member variables are used in several places. I was unable to
implement these as intended and reverted to const accessors.
It seems like the intent is sort of a static const function except tha
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Andrew Walrond wrote:
>> I've tried two mirrors with the same results:
>>
>> $ cat md5.sum | grep gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> d3338b75fa6f83be08908b1eed56d439 gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>>
>> $ md5sum gcc-4.3.3.tar.bz2
>> cc3c5565fdb9ab87a05ddb106b
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> My website isn't visible to public. Also it isn't really benchmark since
> I only run functional tests. My reports only show pass or which tests
> failed.
For what it's worth, Diego is posting his spec runs on my website, at
http://www.airs.com/dnovillo/spec2000/ . I'd be ha
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> My website isn't visible to public. Also it isn't really benchmark since
>> I only run functional tests. My reports only show pass or which tests
>> failed.
>
> For what it's worth, Diego is posting his spec runs o
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 14:19 +0100, Vincent R. wrote:
> 1) When I compile bootstrap gcc, I am using make all-gcc and make
> install-gcc and it seems it doesn't build libgcc anymore.
I think that's correct; make all-gcc just builds gcc these days. To
build libgcc, you need to run make all-target-l
I have a user who is trying to use the large code model on x86-64 Linux
(-mcmodel=large) and is running into some trouble and I have a couple of
questions for the x86-64 experts/maintainers.
The first one is: would it be reasonable to compile crt files with
-mcmodel=large by default on the x86-64
Hi Simon
> I recently (on 18/12/2008) mailed a GCC patch to this mailing list,
> but I went on holiday after and have only just arrived back. I
> probably should have asked for some feedback then.
Thanks for taking the time to describe your work in the right amount of
detail. I think you need a
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:17 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>>>
I was debugging a function and by inserting the debug statement crashed
the system. Some investigation revealed that gcc 4.3.2 arm-eabi (compiled
from sources) with -O2 under some circumstances assumes that if a pointer
is dereferenced, it can not be NULL therefore explicite tests against
NULL can
20 matches
Mail list logo
