On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 21:48 -0700, C.W. Holeman II wrote:
> You might try:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/ppp-public?pli=1
>
> --
> C.W.Holeman II | cw...@julianlocals.com | http://JulianLocals.com/cwhii
> To only a fraction of the human race does God give the privilege of
> earning on
On 1 November 2010 08:46, eric wrote:
> should I also post this to X.org and gcc 's mailing list?
No. This mailing list is not for help using GCC, and your problem is
not caused by GCC. Please post somewhere else more appropriate, such
as the gcc-help list.
On 10/31/2010 07:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> This patch should not of course change whether or not distros choose to
> package the Java compiler; undoubtedly they would continue to do so,
> just as they package the Ada compiler today.
>
> Comments? Approvals?
I see your point, but this wil
On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> 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
> > Does the Go language define a specific ABI convention for returning
> > two values from a function thru registers? If yes, how does GCC
> > implement it? Or is it some future work?
>
> The Go language does not define an ABI for returning multiple values.
> The gccgo frontend implements it by s
On 01/11/2010 03:48, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 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
On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large
> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the
> amount of time it takes to test change
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> Feel free to enable Ada. Builds and tests faster than Java,
>> and is known to expose many more middle end bugs, including
>> ones that require non-call exceptions.
>
> But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
> Will th
Quoting Geert Bosch :
On Nov 1, 2010, at 00:30, Joern Rennecke wrote:
But to get that coverage, testers will need to have gnat installed.
Will that become a requirement for middle-end patch regression testing?
No, the language will only be built if a suitable bootstrap compiler
is present.
Hi,
We are working on a new project which requires a retargetting a
compiler to a small cpu on FPGA.
The cpu is hand-coded and it supports only a limited number of instruction sets.
My questions are:
1. Since I have very limited experience with compilers (this is my
first compiler project), is i
On Oct 31, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 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 1
Hi All,
Is it possible to define UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD as a global variable and
to set this varibale using a pragma (even once for a compilation) and
that way to be able to compile one file with UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD = 8
and another file with UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD = 16?
Thanks, Roy.
> Hi All,
>
> Is it possible to define UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD as a global variable and
> to set this varibale using a pragma (even once for a compilation) and
> that way to be able to compile one file with UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD = 8
> and another file with UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD = 16?
No. This is an inter
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Is it possible to define UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD as a global variable and
>> to set this varibale using a pragma (even once for a compilation) and
>> that way to be able to compile one file with UNITS_PER_SIMD_WORD = 8
>> and another f
Hi Guys,
>>> So this becomes a question for the binutils maintainers: do
the binutils want to be self-contained, or do they want to follow the
path of gcc and require additional libraries to be installed before a
build can succeed?
As I see it the pros of having a copy of the zlib sources in t
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:13:44PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> At the moment I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. What do other
> people think ?
I was asked not to include expat in GDB, which was a similar
situation. I don't remember if this was an FSF issue; I know that the
FSF, in general,
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Ian> This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well go in
Ian> gcc. Anybody want to make an argument one way or another?
Ian> +extern const char *
Ian> +objfile_attributes_compare (objfile_attributes *attrs1,
GDB already uses the name "
Dave Korn writes:
> On 31/10/2010 19:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Java in the same category as Ada and Objective C++. The main argument
>> in favor of this proposal is twofold: 1) building libjava is a large
>> component of gcc bootstrap time, and thus a large component in the
>> amount of t
> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher writes:
Steven> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
Steven> that there should be at least one default language that requires
Steven> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many patches without trouble if
Steven> I did experimental
On 11/01/2010 05:50 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher writes:
>
> Steven> The argument against disabling java as a default language always was
> Steven> that there should be at least one default language that requires
> Steven> non-call exceptions. I recall testing many pat
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Comments? Approvals?
FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
substantial benefits for having java enabled by default. Ada, on the
other hand, has show
Tom Tromey writes:
>> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
> Ian> This patch puts the code in libiberty, but it could equally well go in
> Ian> gcc. Anybody want to make an argument one way or another?
>
> Ian> +extern const char *
> Ian> +objfile_attributes_compare (objfile_attributes *attr
On 11/01/2010 06:16 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Comments? Approvals?
>
> FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
> Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
> substantial benefits for having
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Is there anything we could do to change your mind?
>
> Yes, if we have an autotester that runs the libgcj test suite and
> mails maintainers (or the list) when they break things.
>
I don't mind enabling Java in my autotesters for Linux/ia3
Andrew Haley writes:
> Out of interest, why would Ada expose more midle-end bugs?
TYPE_IS_SIZETYPE (for some definition of "bug").
More seriously, Ada permits all sorts of integer subtypes which do not,
as far as I know, exist in Java. Ada is also the only frontend which
generates PLACEHOLDER_
> More seriously, Ada permits all sorts of integer subtypes which do not,
> as far as I know, exist in Java. Ada is also the only frontend which
> generates PLACEHOLDER_EXPR.
And it heavily uses variable-sized types.
Hui Yan Cheah writes:
> We are working on a new project which requires a retargetting a
> compiler to a small cpu on FPGA.
> The cpu is hand-coded and it supports only a limited number of instruction
> sets.
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. Since I have very limited experience with compilers (this i
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/01/2010 04:06 AM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:13:44PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
> * We have to make sure that zlib will build on all of the
> hosts that we care about. Should the situation arise
> where the zlib does not build on a particular host, and
> the zlib maintainers are not interested in maki
Hi All,
While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural
analysis were performed on each source file separately. For example for
the pass pass_ipa_pta, if we compile two files like :
gcc -O -flto f1.c f2.c
we have the pass run twice, one for each source file. So is the
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 19:57, Hongtao wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural
> analysis were performed on each source file separately. For example for
> the pass pass_ipa_pta, if we compile two files like :
> gcc -O -flto f1.c f2.c
> we ha
On 11/01/10 20:35, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 19:57, Hongtao wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> While using gcc-4.6 with option -flto, I found that interprocedural
>> analysis were performed on each source file separately. For example for
>> the pass pass_ipa_pta, if we compile two files
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:25:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:13:44PM +, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> * We have to make sure that zlib will build on all of the
>> hosts that we care about. Should the situation arise
>> where the zlib does not build on a particular
/usr/include/c++/4.4/backward/backward_warning.h:28:2: warning:
#warning This file includes at least one deprecated or antiquated
header which may be removed without further notice at a future date.
Please use a non-deprecated interface with equivalent functionality
instead. For a listing of replac
On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Comments? Approvals?
FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
Other than massively increasing build times, I have not seen
substantial benefits for having java enabled by
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/01/10 12:16, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 15:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> Comments? Approvals?
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with this patch for the same reasons stated by Ian.
>> Other than massively increasing build tim
"eric lin" writes:
> I am using 4.4.3, could anyone have experience to use different(newer)
> version of gcc/g++ so it can distinquish different useage of same
> variable, i.e. Window, in my case without response by compile time
> error?
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@
On 31.10.2010 20:09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
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
38 matches
Mail list logo
