On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:24:56PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> I'm working on a little patch that extends the data produced for the
> little-used (?) -g1 mode. Normally, this produces very little DWARF
> data (basically just function declaration locus, PC range, and basic
> backtrace-enab
Hi,
Apparently the server is already running svn 1.5.5 but the repository
format is pre-1.5.0. If the repository format was upgraded, we could
start using proper svn merge support for branch maintenance and get
rid of manual merges and svnmerge.py. There is even an upgrade path
from the svnmerge.p
> The basic question though is whether there is interest here for this
> sort of -g1.5 mode. We could ...
Yes, definitely. I thought about it in two contexts -- regular
debugging, and the fact that the OpenCL GSOC project might require
looking at debug info for memory spaces and types of argumen
hi ,
I have a small query.
I am using gcc-4.3.3 version and gdb 5.3 version.
Are the versions of gcc and gdb which I am using are compatible.
Thanks in advance,
Sumanth
Hello world,
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/GCC-4-4-0-erschienen--/meldung/136529
reports the release of gcc 4.4.0 and also claims that 453.povray from
SPEC CPU 2006 caused an ICE in g++. The tone of the report is fairly
negative.
Can somebody with access to SPEC sources confirm / deny and file
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Can somebody with access to SPEC sources confirm / deny and file a bug
> report, if appropriate?
It is an x87 bug only and has already been filed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39856 and working on
being fixed already.
Thanks
Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Hello world,
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/GCC-4-4-0-erschienen--/meldung/136529
>
> reports the release of gcc 4.4.0 and also claims that 453.povray from
> SPEC CPU 2006 caused an ICE in g++. The tone of the report is fairly
> negative.
They accused us of a too-ha
Sebastian Pop wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:12, Robert Dewar wrote:
What would we have to do to make PPL and CLooG required to build GCC?
Why would that be desirable? Seems to me the current situation is
clearly preferable.
To enable loop transforms in -O3.
Note that loop optimization
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 7:02 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Can somebody with access to SPEC sources confirm / deny and file a bug
report, if appropriate?
It is an x87 bug only and has already been filed:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39856 and working on
bein
> Another possibility, though a much bigger amount of work, would be to
> introduce -g options like -f. The presence of such an option would
> imply -g1 or higher, and then you could add -gparameters,
> -gline-numbers, -gvar-tracking, -gmacros, etc.
I would like to have that.
-Andi
--
a...@linu
Toon Moene wrote:
>>> Can somebody with access to SPEC sources confirm / deny and file a bug
>>> report, if appropriate?
>>
>> It is an x87 bug only and has already been filed:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39856 and working on
>> being fixed already.
The reason that is was not f
Andi Kleen writes:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:24:56PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on a little patch that extends the data produced for the
>> little-used (?) -g1 mode. Normally, this produces very little DWARF
>> data (basically just function declaration locus, PC range,
sumanth writes:
> I have a small query.
> I am using gcc-4.3.3 version and gdb 5.3 version.
> Are the versions of gcc and gdb which I am using are compatible.
The gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list is for discussion of gcc development.
This question would be better directed to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org or
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:30:51AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andi Kleen writes:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:24:56PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm working on a little patch that extends the data produced for the
> >> little-used (?) -g1 mode. Normally, this produces v
Thanks for the patch.
There are another error while building linux kernel with GCC 4.5.0
revision 146771.
The minimal code for reproducing the error looks like:
extern unsigned int __invalid_size_argument;
#define TYPECHECK(t)( sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) ? sizeof(t) :
__invalid_size_argument
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009, Denis Onischenko wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> There are another error while building linux kernel with GCC 4.5.0
> revision 146771.
>
> The minimal code for reproducing the error looks like:
>
> extern unsigned int __invalid_size_argument;
> #define TYPECHECK(t)(
Andi Kleen writes:
>> It's not quite that, but the gold linker has a --strip-debug-non-line
>> option which discards all the debugging information except what is
>> needed to map addresses to lines.
>
> The reason I would like to have it is that generating so much data
> slows down gcc compilatio
> Is the kernel using this sort of non-integer-constant-expression in
> bit-field widths as well? Sizes of file-scope arrays (OK, a special case
> for that was added for WINE)? Null pointer constants (that's much more
> problematic to add special cases for)? __builtin_choose_expr conditions?
> I
Errr, the format is not pre-1.5.0
It was svnadmin upgraded a while ago.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Apparently the server is already running svn 1.5.5 but the repository
> format is pre-1.5.0. If the repository format was upgraded, we could
> start using p
A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:
$../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
i386-pc-solaris2.11
$ gcc-4.4.0t -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
--program-suffix=-4.4.0t --disable-nls --with-gn
> A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:
>
> $../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
> i386-pc-solaris2.11
>
> $ gcc-4.4.0t -v
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
> Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
> --enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --disable-multilib
> --program-suffix=-4.4.0t --
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:
>>
>> $../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
>> i386-pc-solaris2.11
>>
>> $ gcc-4.4.0t -v
>> Using built-in specs.
>> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
>> Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
>> --enable-langua
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Dennis Clarke
> wrote:
>>
>>> A successful build on Open Solaris 2008.11:
>>>
>>> $../gcc-4.4.0/config.guess
>>> i386-pc-solaris2.11
>>>
>>> $ gcc-4.4.0t -v
>>> Using built-in specs.
>>> Target: i386-pc-solaris2.11
>>> Configured with: ../gcc-4.4.0/configure
>>>
Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
Can somebody with access to SPEC sources confirm / deny and file a bug
report, if appropriate?
I just started working on SPEC CPU2006 issues this week.
> Seemingly yes. To a certain extend this was by accident as "-msse3" was
> used, but it is on
24 matches
Mail list logo
