On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:10:58PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Do you have the 64bit version of libgdbm.so under /usr/lib64?
>
> Yes. The question is why it isn't getting used.
Add --verbose to ld and post the ld command line as well as its output.
H.J.
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.91.0.4 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2005 0821 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new i386/x86_64 assemblers no longer accept instructions for moving
between a segment register and a 32bit memory location
The current "gcc --version" prints out
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (experimental)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is
NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.
Can we change it
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >Can we change it to something like
> >
> >gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
>
> Doesn't work, unless you also have the branch name.
SPEC CPU 2K FP compiled with gcc 4.2 failed to run with libgfortran
from gcc 4.1. Is this expected? If yes, I think we should bump up
libgfortran version in 4.2.
H.J.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 10:33:31PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 11:45:21AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Alan Modra writes:
> > > On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 12:35:31AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > > > spawns a recursive make (GNU make 3.80) that consumes some 450MB of
> >
How can I rebuild stage 1 compiler with the system compiler? I used
to be able to do
# cd gcc
# make unstage1
# make restage1
But now ./prev-gcc/xgcc is used to build stage 1 compiler, not the
system compiler.
H.J.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > >Can we change it to something like
> > >
> > >gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 02:05:47PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:52:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H.
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:09:41PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> >
> >>I like this, but what if you also did an svn status to see if there were
> >>any modifications WRT the branch/revision and then add either
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:03:25PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 04:09:41PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> >
> >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> &
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 03:58:05PM +1100, Ben Elliston wrote:
> > I like this, but what if you also did an svn status to see if there
> > were any modifications WRT the branch/revision and then add either
> > 'clean' or 'modified' to the information.
>
> I think this is a good idea (and don't mind
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 06:35:29PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 03:00:10PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> > I like this, but what if you also did an svn status to see if there were
> > any modifications WRT the branch/revision and then add either 'clean' or
> > 'modified
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:07:54PM +0100, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> > 1. contrib/gcc_update creates gcc/REVISION with branch name and
> > revision number.
> > 2. If gcc/REVISION exists, it will be used in gcc/version.c.
> >
> > With those 2 patches, I got
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ ./xgcc --v
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:26:18PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> > In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> > gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
> >
> > In any
There are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ grep lang_checks Makefile.in
lang_checks=check-gcc
lang_checks_parallel = $(lang_checks:=//%)
$(lang_checks_parallel): site.exp
$(lang_checks): check-% : $(TESTSUITEDIR)/site.exp
Will adding @check_languages@ to lang_checks to make it support other
languages?
H
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
> get that into the form GCC wants.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:04:46PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
> >
> >And that would be?
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.91.0.5 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2005 1219 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
or
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:53:43AM -0600, Jon Brisbin wrote:
> Update:
>
> Just tarred everything up and stuck it on one of my servers, which has
> 4GBs of physical RAM and 2GBs of swap. Same problem: "virtual memory
> exhausted". If 6GBs isn't enough, then I'm out of ideas.
>
> I tried patchin
Gcc build executable linking against dynamic libraries by default.
"-static" will link against all static libraries. For run-time
portability, we may want to link against static gcc libraries, like
libstdc++.a, libgfortran.a, libgcj.a, , but against dynamic system
libraries, when we building ex
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 01:56:16PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2005, at 1:53 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >Gcc build executable linking against dynamic libraries by default.
> >"-static" will link against all static libraries. For run-time
> >por
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 08:05:13PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 10:58:16AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > One, this will not work at all libobjc or libgcj since they
> > > require lookups at runtime.
> >
> > Are you saying "gcc -static
With the current gcc 3.4 and glibc 2.3 in CVS, I got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] glibc-2.3-import-3.4]$ gdb
./build-ia64-linux/elf/ld-linux-ia64.so.2GNU gdb Red Hat Linux
(6.3.0.0-1.62rh)
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and
you a
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:08:29AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> With the current gcc 3.4 and glibc 2.3 in CVS, I got
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] glibc-2.3-import-3.4]$ gdb
> ./build-ia64-linux/elf/ld-linux-ia64.so.2GNU gdb Red Hat Linux
> (6.3.0.0-1.62rh)
> Copyright 2004 Free Softwa
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 10:35:36PM -0600, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> I'm having all kinds of trouble running svn on my RHEL 4.0 system. A
> typical example of what's happening is:
>
> euler-62% svn cleanup
> svn: XML parser failed in 'gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/special'
>
> I first got that message whe
Due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00837.html
I got
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c: In function ‘fold_minmax’:
/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c:7194: warning: ‘compl_code’
may be used uninitialized in this function make[5]:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 11:53:31AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Due to
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg00837.html
>
> I got
>
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> /export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/fold-const.c: In function ‘fold_minmax’:
> /export/gnu/s
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:17:17AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The testsuite is way broken and does not run all the tests:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00878.html
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00876.h
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:41:39AM -0600, Perry Smith wrote:
> In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
> working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
> code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak to me. It
> seems like one of th
FYI, it is a linker bug:
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2218
I posted a patch for it.
H.J.
I got
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/df-scan.c: In function
`df_record_entry_block_defs':
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/df-scan.c:1753: error:
`INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX' undeclared (first use in this function)
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/df-scan.c:1753: error: (Each
und
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:20:41PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I got
> >
> > /net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/df-scan.c: In function
> > `df_record_entry_block_defs':
> > /net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/df-scan.c:1753
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:26:44AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:20:41PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Can you try the obvious patch here (surrounding INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX
> > with an ifdef)?
>
> That would be wrong. INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX is *required*
> wh
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 12:54:43PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:31:18AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Does that mean DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO should be checked before using
> > INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX instead of checking INCOMING_RETURN_ADDR_RTX?
>
>
Around line 3923 in fortran/trans-array.c, there are
if (expr->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER)
{
gcc_assert (expr->ts.cl && expr->ts.cl->length
&& expr->ts.cl->length->expr_type == EXPR_CONSTANT);
loop.temp_ss->string_length = gfc_conv_mpz_to_tree
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 06:03:12PM -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 05:57:04PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Around line 3923 in fortran/trans-array.c, there are
> >
> > if (expr->ts.type == BT_CHARACTER)
> > {
> > gc
On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 06:33:40PM +0100, Klaus Singvogel wrote:
>
> Hello Mr. H. J. Lu,
> I just want to inform you, that we got a problem report regarding your
> "memory hog" patch from 2005-Dec-08 for gmake-3.80. If compilation of
> "binutils" is started
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:39:41AM +0100, Paul Thomas wrote:
> H. J
>
> This regtests OK and simplifies things somewhat:
>
What is this format? I don't think I can apply it cleanly?
H.J.
---
> Index: gcc/fortran/trans-array.c
> ==
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 03:19:30PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > It does not use ssh. And as far as I can tell a user without write
> > permission (without an account on gcc.gnu.org) doesn't have a way to use
> > ssh to access the GCC tree. Is that correct? So how does he or she do
> > a check
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.91.0.6 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2006 0212 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
or
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 11:48:36AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> >>PR26258: wrong code caused by incorrect alias analyis.
> >
> > This is now fixed on both the branch and the mainline.
>
> Good.
>
> > I guess you meant 26258, the patch for 26029 is by Zdenek and stil
On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 01:59:21PM -0800, Jim Wilson wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >PR rtl-optimization/25603
> >* reload.c (reg_inc_found_and_valid_p): New.
> > (regno_clobbered_p): Handle REG_INC as 25603 workaround.
>
> I don't believe this is s
I have got massive FORFRAN test failures on Linux/ia64 and
Linux/x86-64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00730.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg00729.html
Most of failures look like:
/net/gnu-13/export/gnu/src/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/char_result_11
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 03:03:02PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Denis Nagorny wrote:
>
> >James E Wilson wrote:
> >>Yes, that is what I was suggesting.
> >
> >It's corrected and tested on ia64 and x86-64. I've attached new
> >version.
> >Denis.
> >+ /* Return 1 if
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 12:34:19PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 11:59, Denis Nagorny wrote:
> > It's corrected and tested on ia64 and x86-64. I've attached new version.
> > Denis.
>
> This look pretty good. There is still one place where the spacing looks
> funny.
>
> > +
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 03:46:57PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:46, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > I took the liberty to fix the format issue on behalf of Denis. Is this
> > OK for mainline?
>
> Yes, this looks good to me.
I checked it in. Here is the testc
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 09:23:36AM -0500, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-02/msg00357.html, you wrote:
>
> > In fact the "gamer" benchmarks you are dissing are quite well reflecting the
> very kind
> > of coding excessively found in GCC itself. Some observations suggest
>
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 10:51:13AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Gerald wrote:
> >On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >> My memory hog patch for make has 2 typos. This patch fixes them.
> >Thanks, H. J. What's the upstream status of your patches?
>
> I think
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:30:41PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> the bottleneck of a shared memory bus, but the operating system must
> allocate
> most memory locally to each CPU to avoid a bottleneck in the cross-connect
> of the processors.
>
Linux kernel 2.6.16-rc1 and above supports
percpu
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:58:35PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:30:41PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> >
> >
> >>the bottleneck of a shared memory bus, but the operating system must
> >>allocate
>
On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 02:09:43PM +0300, Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >GCC 4.1.0 RC1 is here:
> >
> >ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.0-20060219
> >
> >Please download, build, and test. Please use these tarballs, rather
> >than the current SVN branch, so that we test
When I use -O2 -mtune=pentium4 -ffast-math on SPEC CPU 2K on Linux/x86
with gcc 4.2, I get
*** Miscompare of 200.s, see
/export/spec/src/2000/spec/benchspec/CINT2000/176.gcc/run/0004/200.s.mis
*** Miscompare of scilab.s, see
/export/spec/src/2000/spec/benchspec/CINT2000/176.gcc/run/0004/sc
On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:00:33AM -0800, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
> On Feb 23, 2006, at 8:54 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >When I use -O2 -mtune=pentium4 -ffast-math on SPEC CPU 2K on Linux/x86
> >with gcc 4.2, I get
> >
> >*** Miscompare of 200.s, see
> &
The current gcc only generates ELF type info for undefined symbol for
HPUX. This information is useful for linker to detect possible run-time
problems at link-time. Here is an example:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mismatch]$ cat foo.c
#include
extern void bar (void);
int times;
int
main ()
{
printf ("t
On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 08:40:18PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> With clean sources on x86_64-linux-gnu, I am getting almost all tests
> for running gij to fail. Does anyone know what is going on here?
I will bet it is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17311
H.J.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:48:39AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
> > Andrew Pinski writes:
> > > With clean sources on x86_64-linux-gnu, I am getting almost all tests
> > > for running gij to fail. Does anyone know what is going on here?
> >
> > I'll have a try now.
>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:11:21PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H. J. Lu writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:48:39AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > Andrew Haley writes:
> > > > Andrew Pinski writes:
> > > > > With clean sources on x86_6
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:19:18PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H. J. Lu writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:11:21PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > H. J. Lu writes:
> > > >
> > > > The fix was posted at
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 08:24:18AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> GCC 4.1.0 has been released.
>
It is great. Is 4.1 branch open now? I'd like to back port the x86
-mtune=generic patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01436.html
to 4.1.1.
Thanks.
H.J.
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:14, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Is 4.1 branch open now? I'd like to back port the x86
> > -mtune=generic patch:
>
> Isn't that totally inappropriate for a release branch?
>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:42:19PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/1/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 09:21:19PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:14, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > Is 4.1 branch
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:06:57PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:49, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > It is the issue of quality of gcc 4.1 on IA32/x86-64. The current gcc
> > 4.1 performs very poorly on IA32/x86-64, comparing against gcc 4.2.
>
> Oh, r
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:43:40PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/1/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:06:57PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 21:49, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > It is the iss
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 02:19:47PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > Here are diffs of SPEC CPU 2K between before and after with gcc 4.1
> > using "-O2 -ffast-math" on Nocona:
>
> Steven's right; this is clearly a new feature. HJ'
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:06:46PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > Here are diffs of "-O2 -mtune=nocona -ffast-math" vs
> > "-O2 -mtune=generic -ffast-math" on Nocona:
>
> A 1.5% performance improvement, while certainly significa
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:05:16PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 03:06:46PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > > Here are diffs of "-O2 -mtune=nocona -ffast-math" vs
> > > "-O2 -mtune=generic -ffast-math&quo
With this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01877.html
gcc no longer mixes SSE and x387 math by default. However glibc
still assumes gcc mixes SSE and x387 math. The x86-64 FP control
routines in glibc change both SSE and x387 units, which is no
longer necessary with the newer g
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:08:54PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/2/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > With this patch:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg01877.html
> >
> > gcc no longer mixes SSE and x387 math by defau
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:34:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/2/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:08:54PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On 3/2/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > With this
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:44:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:38:47AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Yes. That is for float and double functions in libm.
> >
> > > to touch x387
> > > flags for XFmode long long operations.
> >
>
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 05:19:20PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 3/2/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 04:44:50PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 07:38:47AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > Yes. Th
I think it is a glibc issue.
H.J.
-
On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 01:18:34PM -0800, Torsten Rohlfing wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> I am experiencing a major performance problem with the log() function on
> the x86_64 platform. It can be illustrated with the following little
> test program:
>
> te
FYI, today's gcc 4.2 generates many unaligned access on IA64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26721
It may be related to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01001.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01000.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg00999.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2006 at 12:13:30AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So this Mandriva guy tells me gfortran can't compile Scilab, and
> he is right! Scilab is a pretty important piece of Fortran that
> many people use, so it is a shame that gfortran can't build it
> right now. But the reas
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.91.0.7 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2006 0317 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
or
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 10:18:31PM +0900, SUGIOKA Toshinobu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For sh4-unknown-linux target, libgcc_s.so is not symbolic link but linker
> script
> that is
>
> GROUP ( libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc.a )
>
> I hear this is because some functions are not included in libgcc_s.so.1 and
> they
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 09:00:14PM +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Dave Murphy wrote:
> >
> >>I've been having some odd problems with relocation of 4.x toolchains -
> >>i.e. when a toolchain is configured, built and inst
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I've now reviewed the open regressions against the GCC 4.1 branch.
> There are 101 "serious" (P3 or higher) regressions against GCC 4.1, the
> vast majority of which also apply to 4.2. Therefore, fixing these
> regressions provides a
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 02:47:54PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On the regression front, we have 61 open serious (P3 or higher)
> regressions that are specific to 4.2. I have not triaged these, so
> there is a good chance than more than a few relate to Ada, Java,
> Fortran, or non-primary, non-se
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 06:01:54PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > BTW, If anyone is interested in working on SEE for x86-64, please drop
> > me a line.
>
> Why not do the comunication in public?
Sure. Let me give a try.
If I understand it correctly, the current SEE implementation tries to
elim
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Olivier Galibert wrote:
> I need to be able to do unaligned memory accesses to memory in
> big-endian or little-endian mode. For portability, I'd like to do it
> in pure C, but I'd like the compiler to generate optimal sequences for
> the operations. Most
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 01:56:21AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Since they are assembly codes, it sounds like a gcc driver issue to me.
>
> Might be. The way the assembly is built is a bit funky because it's a
> shared library.
It is a gcc bug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27253
This is the beta release of binutils 2.17.50.0.1 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2006 0427 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
or
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 03:49:42PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2006, "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 12:14:03AM -0600, R Hill wrote:
> >>
> >> Testcase is:
> >>
> >> .tfloat
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 01:23:20PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It looks like a gcc bug to me. Gcc 4.2 miscompiles:
> >
> > more_than_enough_bits_for_digits
> > = (number_of_digits_to_use * 3
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:25:22PM +0200, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
> The patches for SEE have been committed today.
>
> The minor style corrections requested by you in the
> final review approval will be in a follow-up patch
> to be submitted the next week.
>
I didn't see you have addressed the i
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> infrastructure to better support x86. The x86 port can turn off SEE in
> override_options or XFAIL the tests for x86 until that work is committed.
Some of
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:39:58AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 8:37 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:15:27AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>I thought that you or others at Intel were going to extend the SEE
> >>inf
Before I open a bug report, I will ask it here:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ cat foo.c
typedef struct A A;
A *a;
typedef struct A
{
int x;
} A;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]$ gcc -c foo.c
foo.c:7: error: redefinition of typedef 'A'
foo.c:1: error: previous declaration of 'A' was here
[EMAIL PROTECTED] tmp]
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 08:26:52PM +0300, Leehod Baruch wrote:
> Please, lets be more precise.
> All the problem you have listed here are problems that relates x86.
> There is no problem on PPC and as far as I know there is no problem
> on other platforms (at least no one complained about it).
> *A
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:53:38PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> H J Lu writes:
>
> >> > This is case for all extensions for i386. For x86-64, only
> >> > zero_extendsidi2 won't clobber CC.
> >> Again, for x86.
>
> HJ&
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The following regression appeared between 20060504 and 20060505 on
> i686-linux. It is filed as PR 27443,and appears to be a consequence of
> a new optimization pass introduced by revision 113518.
>
It is
htt
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:18:37PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > export BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> > -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SYSROOT_CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2 -
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 05:28:14PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> >
> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
> >>
> >> Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
> >
> > (x86 with checking enabled)
> >
> > libbackend.a(print-rtl.o): In function `print_decl_name':
>
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:23:37AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2006, at 10:20 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>>I *just* che
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> >I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
> >in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
>
> N
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:08:13PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 06:00:09PM +0200, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> Bootstrap failure in gnattools for ia64-unknown-linux-gnu. Complaining on
> missing libunwind.so.7
>
It is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17464
H.J.
201 - 300 of 376 matches
Mail list logo
