Re: Three old entries from PROBLEMS

On 11/02/2009 08:49 AM, Joern Rennecke wrote: This would only be valid if the comparison is in an equality context (or for special input operand ranges). So (unless the target is CC0) you'd either have to use dataflow analysis to look at all the contexts the comparison result is used in, or you'

RE: plugin hooks

ly in phase 3, I suppose we should plan on re-baselining at least once - re-baselining from 4.6 experimental mainline after 4.5 is branched - so instead of a gcc version number a branch date seems more suitable. I.e. if the branch were to be created today, I propose to use the name branches/ici-200

Re: i370 port - constructing compile script

I've been having fantastic success building gcc. I have got it to iterate through the entire build (as far as I can tell) now. Then finally I ran into an internal compiler error which I haven't seen before. One of the gcc options must have triggered something off. Perhaps it was -Wwrite-string

RE: RFC PRE-ing REFERENCE expressions

Hi Richard, We would like to hang on to 4.4 for a little while. I was hoping I could grab only the alias analysis improvements from the trunk. Do you suspect this would be troublesome? Cheers, Rahul -Original Message- From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] Sent: 30 O

RE: RFC PRE-ing REFERENCE expressions

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Rahul Kharche wrote: > Hi Richard, > > We would like to hang on to 4.4 for a little while. I was hoping I could > grab only the alias analysis improvements from the trunk. Do you suspect > this would be troublesome? Uh, definitely - it's not easy to grab them in isolation. R

Re: Three old entries from PROBLEMS

On 11/01/2009 04:03 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: An andl #1 after a seq is 1 to 1, but how should compiler know that? I don't understand the last sentence. I think it's talking about something like int f(int x, int y) { int r; r = x == y; r &= 1; return r; } cmpl%esi, %edi

Re: Three old entries from PROBLEMS

On 11/02/2009 09:37 AM, Richard Henderson wrote: Note that with char values, we do eliminate the AND operation, so this is not (any longer) about some pass not understanding STORE_FLAG_VALUE. ... or maybe it is. We probably should have eliminated the AND at the gimple level. r~

RE; BAD WEATHER IS COMING... How will you reach your people?

If you can not view this email CLICK HERE . 1. Unlimited call.blast - Record a single message and reach a few or thousands of people in minutes! 2. Flash Webs

incorrect place for LTO options description

description of the LTO specific options (--enable-lto, --with-libelf and --enable gold) should be placed in "Options specification" section instead of "Java-Specific Options" section on http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html

RE: plugin hooks

is currently in phase 3, > I suppose we should plan on re-baselining at least once - re-baselining > from 4.6 experimental mainline after 4.5 is branched - so instead of > a gcc version number a branch date seems more suitable. > > I.e. if the branch were to be created today, I propose to use the name > branches/ici-20091102-branch for the branch.

RE; BAD WEATHER IS COMING... How will you reach your people?

If you can not view this email CLICK HERE . 1. Unlimited call.blast - Record a single message and reach a few or thousands of people in minutes! 2. Flash Webs

Process for proposing new C/C++ language extensions.

Can someone explain to me what the process is for adding extensions to the GNU implementation of the C/C++ preprocessor?

cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

Hello, I'm not sure how to handle this, while compiling firefox-3.6b1.source I get this with the default compiling options, as well as custom: [ 532.942324] cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0 [ 532.942330] Pid: 16002, comm: cc1plus Tainted: P 2.6.32-rc5-00083-g04ea

Re: Process for proposing new C/C++ language extensions.

johnchrist...@smtp.brenneise.com wrote: Can someone explain to me what the process is for adding extensions to the GNU implementation of the C/C++ preprocessor? I am guessing that you really mean to extend the C++ language, perhaps thru additional preprocessor constructs. I am not sure to u

Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

On 11/02/2009 10:29 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: > [ 532.942324] cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, > oom_adj=0 > [ 532.942330] Pid: 16002, comm: cc1plus Tainted: P > 2.6.32-rc5-00083-g04ea458 #2 > [ 532.942333] Call Trace: > [ 532.942342] [] T.417+0x7c/0x245 > [ 532.942347]

Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 11/02/2009 10:29 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: >> [  532.942324] cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, >> oom_adj=0 >> [  532.942330] Pid: 16002, comm: cc1plus Tainted: P >> 2.6.32-rc5-00083-g04ea458 #2 >> [  532.942333] Call Tra

Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

On 11/02/2009 11:02 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: > Now with this oom-killer I'm > hitting this on an imac9,1 with > gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091029 (experimental) So there is probably a leak in the gcc chain. Does this happen with a stable gcc version?

PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold]

Hi, This patch adds --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] so that we can build both ld and gold. This patch will 1. Install ld as ld.bfd 2. Install gold as ld.gold 3. Install one of them as ld, selected by --with-linker. If needed, gcc install invoke gold as ld.gold and ld as ld.bfd. Any

Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

Jiri Slaby wrote: On 11/02/2009 11:02 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: Now with this oom-killer I'm hitting this on an imac9,1 with gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091029 (experimental) So there is probably a leak in the gcc chain. Does this happen with a stable gcc version? well right now I'(on the

Re: undefined reference to `gt_pch_nx_tree_code'

Hi, Thanks a lot for your time and replies.. It worked. Im sorry it was a silly mistake that I dint notice. Aravinda On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: >> static GTY(( is_param(union tree_code) )) htab_t boud_ins = NULL; > > Ah, now it's clear. You probably wanted "union t

Re: cc1plus invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x280da, order=0, oom_adj=0

Jiri Slaby wrote: On 11/02/2009 11:02 PM, Justin Mattock wrote: Now with this oom-killer I'm hitting this on an imac9,1 with gcc (GCC) 4.5.0 20091029 (experimental) So there is probably a leak in the gcc chain. Does this happen with a stable gcc version? o.k. I think it's somet

[c++]pt.c:most_specialized_class appears to substitute outer args for inner params

The following code around trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c:15514: 15513 partial_spec_args = INNERMOST_TEMPLATE_ARGS (partial_spec_args); 15514 partial_spec_args = tsubst_template_args 15515 (partial_spec_args, outer_args, tf_none, NULL_TREE); as shown here: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c