Re: order of -D and -U is significant

2009-08-05 Thread Dave Korn
Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote: >> But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard >> say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification >> that is the issue, and it refers to a command that is spelled "c89", >> or (in la

Re: order of -D and -U is significant

2009-08-05 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2009-08-05 10:07:49 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > GCC does not install an executable called "c99". Or one called > "c89". So what any standard requires of them is irrelevant to us, > except that we would want to make it possible to support that mode > of operation. And we do; with our predictable

Re: order of -D and -U is significant

2009-08-05 Thread Dave Korn
Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2009-08-05 10:07:49 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: >> GCC does not install an executable called "c99". Or one called >> "c89". So what any standard requires of them is irrelevant to us, >> except that we would want to make it possible to support that mode >> of operation. And

What happens when you --enable libgomp but not --enable-languages=fortran?

2009-08-05 Thread Dave Korn
Well, this is what happened to me: > libtool: link: /gnu/gcc/obj-patched-gnat2/./gcc/xgcc > -B/gnu/gcc/obj-patched-gnat > 2/./gcc/ -B/opt/gcc-tools/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ > -B/opt/gcc-tools/i686-pc-cygwin/li > b/ -isystem /opt/gcc-tools/i686-pc-cygwin/include -isystem > /opt/gcc-tools/i686-p >

Re: How to set the alignment

2009-08-05 Thread Mohamed Shafi
2009/8/5 Jim Wilson : > On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 11:09 +0530, Mohamed Shafi wrote: >> >> i am not able to implement the alignment for short. >> >> The following is are the macros that i used for this >> >> #define PARM_BOUNDARY 8 >> >> #define STACK_BOUNDARY 64 >> The target is 32bit . The first two p

Re: order of -D and -U is significant

2009-08-05 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Dave Korn wrote: > to integrate this behaviour into the driver. Perhaps we could even do the old > behave-differently-according-to-argv[0] trick, although I'm not sure if that > isn't slightly discouraged these days. The proper thing is to build a separate driver binary (opti

Preparing to merge ARM/hard_vfp_branch to trunk

2009-08-05 Thread Richard Earnshaw
I think we are now in the position where we can merge the arm hard-vfp ABI code into trunk. There are no known issues with the compiler code and just one outstanding issue relating to tests and dealing with compiler variants (multilibs and other options). That issue shouldn't prevent merging. Al

Re: order of -D and -U is significant

2009-08-05 Thread Joe Buck
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > > But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard > > say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification > > that is the issue, and it refers to

Re: Preparing to merge ARM/hard_vfp_branch to trunk

2009-08-05 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I believe that I could legitimately approve that patch myself (it's > pretty trivial and I didn't author it), but I'd prefer to get approval > from one of the SPARC maintainers. Here's your chance: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg01027.html OK. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Preparing to merge ARM/hard_vfp_branch to trunk

2009-08-05 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Botcazou Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 17:59:01 +0200 >> I believe that I could legitimately approve that patch myself (it's >> pretty trivial and I didn't author it), but I'd prefer to get approval >> from one of the SPARC maintainers. Here's your chance: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc

GCC's bug reports not available for search

2009-08-05 Thread ami_stuff
Hi, Please someone change the status of these bug reports to be available in the search engine of bugtracker: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40819 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40977 Thanks Regards

Re: GCC's bug reports not available for search

2009-08-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:14 PM, ami_stuff wrote: > Hi, > > Please someone change the status of these bug reports to be available in the > search engine of bugtracker: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40819 > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40977 ? You have to be more

Re: GCC's bug reports not available for search

2009-08-05 Thread ami_stuff
Hi, > You have to be more specific on what you refer to with "search engine > of bugtracker". http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/query.cgi Sorry, these bugs are available for search, but not with "m68k" keyword. Maybe this can be fixed. Regards

Re: GCC's bug reports not available for search

2009-08-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM, ami_stuff wrote: > Hi, > >> You have to be more specific on what you refer to with "search engine >> of bugtracker". > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/query.cgi > > Sorry, these bugs are available for search, but not with "m68k" keyword. > Maybe this can be fixed. ht

Re: GCC's bug reports not available for search

2009-08-05 Thread ami_stuff
Hi, Ok, I didn't use "advenced search". Problem solved. Regards

Re: Bootstrap failure configuring in-tree gmp in mainline

2009-08-05 Thread Bradley Lucier
On Jul 25, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Am i missing something? No, it is a bug due to the build-with-C++ patches. Please file a PR and, in the meanwhile, try --enable-stage1-languages=c,c++ or -- enable-build-with-cxx. I filed PR40950 for this. I also filed PR40968 for a