Dear all,
In case someone is interested, the paper with details on feature extraction
plugin
used in MILEPOST GCC/cTuning CC (practical aggregation of semantical program
properties
for machine learning based optimization) by M.Namolaru et al from CASES'10 is
now available
on-line:
http://fu
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Will put
>
> if [ Go is enabled ]; then
> boot_language=yes
> fi
>
> in cp/config-lang.in work?
Probably, but why should I change cp/config-lang.in if I want to support
Go? Everything required to support Go should, as much as possible, be
in the Go frontend.
Ian
Dave Korn writes:
> On 30/10/2010 19:24, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/30/2010 11:37 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
Uh, really? I thought there were like a half-dozen lto sections...
>>> Which we iterate over just once, and record them all in a hash table from
>>> the per-section callback, unle
Dave Korn writes:
> Attached are the revised version of the file, and a diff to show what I
> changed. With this version, all the tests in gcc.dg/lto/lto.exp pass as
> before (i.e. there are still a couple of pre-existing FAILs that aren't
> affected).
Excellent, thanks. I have incorporated
* Ian Lance Taylor:
> The Go frontend was approved for inclusion with gcc by the steering
> committee a while back: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
How general is the garbage collector and its support infrastructure in
the compiler? AFAICS, it's precise, unlike the Boehm/Dehmer
Paul Koning writes:
> What triggered the question is that I'm trying to debug a testsuite
> ICE in fortran, pdp11 target, where it aborts in
> convert_memory_address_addr_space apparently trying to make a 32 bit
> pointer. But only 16 bit pointers are valid, ptr_mode is HImode as
> expected and
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>
>> [...] By default, the in-tree zlib is used. If you configure
>> binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used. [...]
>
> Can you summarize what modern platforms lack a system zlib, and what
> justifies using the p
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Ian Lance Taylor:
>
>> The Go frontend was approved for inclusion with gcc by the steering
>> committee a while back: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html .
>
> How general is the garbage collector and its support infrastructure in
> the compiler? AFAICS, it
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
>
>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>>> [...] By default, the in-tree zlib is used. If you configure
>>> binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used. [...]
>>
>> Can you summarize what m
Hello All (& Ian)
The Go language has functions which can give more than one result.
In my MELT experience, most multiple-results function calls have only two
results. Giving 3 results is very rare, and giving more than 3 results is
really exceptionnal (probably as exceptionnal as functions wi
Currently we build the Java frontend and libjava by default. At the GCC
Summit we raised the question of whether should turn this off, thus only
building it when java is explicitly selected at configure time with
--enable-languages. Among the people at the summit, there was general
support for th
Quoting Basile Starynkevitch :
From what I know of the AMD64 ABI, (but I might be false), functions
are only supposed to return one result in a register (rax...).
That depends on how you view the return value. complex or structure
value could be interpreted as multiple values, or vice versa
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
>>
>>> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>>
[...] By default, the in-tree zlib is used. If you configure
binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used. [...]
>>
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
>In my MELT experience, most multiple-results function calls have only
>two results. Giving 3 results is very rare, and giving more than 3
>results is really exceptionnal (probably as exceptionnal as functions
>with more than 6 arguments).
>
>From what I learned from
Hello,
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This is not a proposal to remove the Java frontend nor is it leading up
> to that. It is a proposal to not build the frontend by default, putting
> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) bu
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20101031 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20101031/
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 Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
configure --disable-libgcj. I have been using this for my daily
bootstraps for a while.
Gerald
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:i...@google.com]
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:42 PM
> To: Frank Ch. Eigler
> Cc: H.J. Lu; Binutils; GCC Development; GDB
> Subject: Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity
>
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> Is it possible to build and test java without all of libjava?
>
> configure --disable-libgcj. I have been using this for my daily
> bootstraps for a while.
But it does not test java. Since t
On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
> that there should be at least one default language that requires
> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
> I did experimental builds with just
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Oct 31, 2010, at 15:33, Steven Bosscher wrote:
The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
that there should be at least one default language that requires
non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
I did experimental
21 matches
Mail list logo
