On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 16:06 +0200, Ladislav Lestan wrote:
> Hi
> I have following problem
> When I compile c source file with options:
>
> mips64-linux-gnu-gcc -c -mabi=64 -march=rm9000 -gdwarf-2
>
> and then when I use dwarfdump the value of atribute dw_at_high_pc is 0 that
> is surely wrong
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
Is there a plan to support anonymous svn access via http?
It can be slower and more resource intensive.
I'd like to avoid it if possible, but if not,
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 12:31 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is there a quick way to turn a CVS checkout to SVN, other than making a
> > patch and applying to a fresh SVN checkout?
>
> I believe cvs diff | patch is the only way, maybe Daniel knows bette
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 14:13 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > In the meanwhile, 1.3.0rc1 of SVN will become available at sometime in
> > the next hour or so at:
> >
> > http://lolut.utbm.info/pub/subversion-1.3.0-rc1/
>
>
>
>
[ Mark, my emails to gcc-announce are dropped on the floor, can you
forward this there? ]
The new SVN repository is up. I will rescript the cvs sessions in
wwwdocs, and post the final set of wwwdocs changes.
contrib/ scripts have been updated in the new repository
maintainer-scripts/ have as we
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 19:22 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > contrib/ scripts have been updated in the new repository
>
> It appears this happend only on the trunk.
>
Yes.
I will udpate them on branches as well.
> Andreas.
>
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 09:45 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> > snip
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] /gnu/HEAD> svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
> > trunk
> > Enter passphrase for key '/home/dk/.ssh/id_rsa':
> >
> >
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 18:25 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> >> snip
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] /gnu/HEAD> svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
> >> trunk
> >> Enter passphrase for key '/home/
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 09:40 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnMerge
>
> I changed:
>
> $ svn switch svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4.0-branch
>
> to:
>
> $ svn switch svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_0-branch
>
> :-( Took me a while to figure out
For those who want a starting point to mirror the entire repo from, i
have placed an rzip'd (http://rzip.samba.org) copy of the repository in
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/gccrepo.tar.rz
It is 549 meg and expands to 8.5 gig.
Before someone says "wow, just use rzip in subversion", we
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 15:29 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> For those who want a starting point to mirror the entire repo from, i
> have placed an rzip'd (http://rzip.samba.org) copy of the repository in
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/gccrepo.tar.rz
>
>
Fin
On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 22:40 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > I am still working on tarballs of a .svk/local dir for people.
>
> Any reason you're doing a tarball instead of a bootstrap dump?
> http://svk.elixus.org/?SVKBootStrap
Same thing, more or less :)
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I might have missed something,
but I can't find how to retrieve the
- updateable - sources for wwwdocs.
Please point me to the (in hindsight obvious)
documentation ...
wwwdocs is still in cvs (I have not looked into
the docs to see if that is menti
Errr.
This is really a snapshot from CVS, since i haven't committed the svn
version of gcc-release yet.
Sorry about that.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20051029 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20051029/
and on various mirrors, see
Now that we have a repo set up, i suggest we reorg the tags into some
sort of sane structure so that there aren't 900 of them in the same
dir :).
I'm pretty sure we can't get consensus on where to put *all* the tags,
but I'm also pretty sure we can agree to the following:
1. Apple tags should go
> along with any other mistaken tags (and branches).
>
> I think merge tags for active branches should be the responsibility of the
> branch maintainers to do as they wish with. Merge tags and branchpoint
> tags from branches that have been completely merged into mainline can
> probably go, su
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 19:56 +0100, Paul Thomas wrote:
> Mike,
>
> >
> > When created, you will be able to find it with ls, and it will be called:
> >
> > branches/gcc-4_1-branch.
> >
> I will look forward to seeing it! The reason that I asked in the first
> place is the responce to trying to upda
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 10:23 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > Okay, well, consider this an official proposal to remove:
> >
> > 1. the tree-ssa branch *merge* tags (IE the ones used to merge trunk
> > into tree-ssa, *not* the other way a
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 13:42 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> [Danny, see below for a request.]
>
> In my review of open PRs against the 4.1 branch, I'm going to adopt a
> new convention.
>
> Until now, when I've decided something is not important enough to
> require fixing for a particular release,
On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 17:48 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> It might be better to add a flag for this istead of using the priority
> >> field.
>
> >I think it's an appropriate use of the priority field; the priority
> >field is supposed to say how important the bug is, which is another way
> >of
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 01:18 +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> For old branches that are dead and of no use (because they are
> >> merged into newer branches), I'm include to rm them, and for old
> >> branches that have ideas, but, may never see the lig
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 03:08 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | >> You can always see them with the [EMAIL PROTECTED] syntax
> | >>
> | >> ie
> | >> svn ls svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ./gcc/.cvsignore
> ./libstdc++-v3/.cvsignore
> ./zlib/.cvsignore
> ./libobjc/.cvsignore
> ./intl/.cvsignore
> ./libgfortran/.cvsignore
> ./libmudflap/.cvsignore
> ./boehm-gc/.cvsignore
> ./fastjar/.cvsignore
> ./libffi/.cvsignore
> ./libssp/.cvsignore
> ./libjava/libltdl/.cvsignore
> ./libjava/g
On Mon, 2005-10-31 at 15:19 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [...]
> >> ./.cvsignore
> >>
> >> Shouldn't we delete all of them?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > I thought i fixed cvs2svn
I've placed an svk tarball that contains trunk/ from 3.4 onward at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/svk-trunk-3.4-onward.tar.rz
Note:
People expecting this to be massively faster (IE 100x) at some things
like annotate are going to discover that unless you have a slow network
connection, i
is available
URL is
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/svn-trunk-entire-history.tar.rz
Is this still happening?
I thought i fixed this a few days ago (the perl regex for matching prs
didn't translate perfectly into python)
Can you please give me a revision number to play with?
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 16:57 +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I noticed that library commits fixing
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 17:20 +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >Is this still happening?
> >
> >I thought i fixed this a few days ago (the perl regex for matching prs
> >didn't translate perfectly into python)
> >
> >Can yo
On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 14:33 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> > I tried:
> > bash-2.05b$ svn diff Makefile.in svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/
> > gcc/trunk/gcc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > But that gives me an error message:
> >
> > svn: Target lists to d
> There's been talk of a DEFAULTREPO or allowing substitutions and aliases
> in the config file, or something
>
>
Of course, the question always raised when you try to do this is "why is
this better than just using shell variables"
if you can give me a good answer to take back to [EMAIL PROTECT
[(I've copied this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], because there were questions about
what users actually wanted)]
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 11:23 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > However, before coming up with a zillion suggestions about how to
> > make the synta
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 21:27 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> cvs version version 1.1.1.1.2.1 of
> gcc/libjava/classpath/java/awt/im/InputContext.java , i.e. the
> sh-elf-4_1-branch head,
> is supposed to correspond to
> svn+ssh://[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/branches/sh-elf-4_1-branch/libjava/class
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 23:49 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Simply do a recopy of libjava from the approriate tag, and all will be
> >well.
> >
> >
> Do you have a list of potentially affected files?
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:36 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Whatever you want. It should probably either return success, or use -N.
> >
> >
> >
> P.S.: When I use a diff-cmd with -N, I not only get a diff for the 44
> files that are different,
Don't use
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:03 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> > bash-2.05b$ svn diff --old svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
> > trunk/gcc --new gcc
>
> > /usr/bin/diff -up -F'^(' -u -L gcc/.cvsignore (.../svn+ssh://
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gc
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:18 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Whatever you want. It should probably either return success, or use -N.
> >
> >
> I also get a failure when I comment out the diff-cmd line in my
> ~/.subversion/config .
> Does that mean that ev
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 19:13 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 12:03 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> > > bash-2.05b$ svn diff --old svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
> > > trunk/gcc --new gcc
>
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 20:29 -0500, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > What version of svn?
>
> The 1.3 release candidate.
>
> > What is the exact branch you are trying to diff??
>
> I had checked out a copy of the sh-elf-4_1-branch, and used
> svn merge to apply the patches from the last merge point to
>
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 15:45 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > On Friday 04 November 2005 08:34, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > > * tree-flow-inline.h (ref_contains_indirect_ref): Deal
> > > with INDIRECT_REF not in handled_component_p.
> > >
> >
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 15:05 +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >I did
> >
> >svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/sh-elf-4_1-branch
> >cd sh-elf-4_1-branch
> >svn merge -r106276:106279 svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/sv
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 10:17 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 10:07, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > #if defined ENABLE_CHECKING
> > gcc_assert (handled_component_p (ref))
> > #endif
> >
> > If the comment says it has to be an ARRAY_REF, why not just check for
>
On Fri, 2005-11-04 at 16:23 +, Dave Korn wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > The use in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c is really trying to skip out on
> > inferring loop bounds from pointer to structure accesses in the case of
> > things like:
> >
> >
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Kelley Cook wrote:
Snapshots haven't been created since 10/29.
I updated the one gccadmin uses yesterday.
look in /home/gccadmin/scripts
Looks like the version of gcc_release running on gcc.gnu.org is still the old
CVS based one.
gcc_release: Tagging sources as gcc
On Sat, 2005-11-05 at 01:07 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Kelley Cook wrote:
> >
> > > Snapshots haven't been created since 10/29.
> >
> > I updated the one gcc
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 13:42 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 10:37:13AM -0800, Devang Patel wrote:
> > On 11/7/05, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > I have generated an SVK repository to go with this. As anyone who's
> > > doing or don
On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 13:56 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:47:52PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > If you try to commit to the mirror, it will try to commit to the
> > underlying repo.
> >
> > That's how svk push actually works.
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 13:37 -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Author: dberlin
> > Date: Thu Nov 10 17:23:49 2005
> > New Revision: 106743
>
> > 2005-11-10 Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 19:33 +, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Hi .
>I want to use gcc's alias analysis in a standalone way. What I
> observe is that a lot of the information is hidden because of
> additional temporaries that have been generated. Can any one suggest
> as to if there is a simpl
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 22:53 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Eventually we should manually mark certain function DECLs as
> > > not-returning-null instead of my kludgy test for this one case. I don't
> > > know if/when I can get to that. Perhaps so
On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 22:18 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > --Boundary-00=_dwUeD1M6OcgA542
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="us-ascii"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Content-Disposition: inline
> >
> >
> > This branch will act as a repository for new optimizations mostly
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 01:26 +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks for woking on this. Any specific reason why using the LLVM bytecode
> wasn't taken into account?
It was.
A large number of alternatives were explored, including CIL,
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 20:33 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Our understanding was that the debugger actually uses the symbol table,
> > in addition to the debugging information, in some cases. (This must be
> > true when not running with -g, but I thought it was true in other cases
> > as well.)
> (B) What bits of GCC would we be bypassing, and how badly would we miss
> them?
>
> Presumably, many of the shiny new tree optimizers. Ow. But GCC was
> not in any state to do this sort of surgery a year ago, I think.
>
Probably true on both counts, but that wouldn't bother me, speaking as
s
On Sat, 2005-11-19 at 10:14 -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> (BTW, sorry for the reposted messages.)
>
> While I was waiting for some svn commands to finish (cleanup, update)
> on my solaris2.7 box, which has a slow filesystem, I happened to run
> truss -p out of curiosity to see what
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:52 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Paolo Carlini wrote:
> > Hi all, hi Danny,
> >
> > recently I noticed a very stupid but annoying (new!) issue: comments end
> > up wrongly formatted. I think there is a mismatch between the wideness
> > of the "Additional Comments" free for
> Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
> about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form. The
> free form presents itself with a given wideness, which I trust when
> writing my comment to choose carefully the length of the lines and add
> appropri
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 18:49 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Is it obvious that my issue is not the same as Sebastian'? I'm talking
> | > about text written by hand in the "Additional Comments" free form
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 16:51 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> |
> | > contrib/ scripts have been updated in the new repository
> |
> | I've merged the gc
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:07 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | There's a lot to be learned (for me at least) about using svk. At some
> | point I will update the wiki with useful bits, but I don't have many
> | just yet. For instance,
>
> GVM, TU combination and all the associated slimming down of our IR
> data
> structures will be quite a bit of work. This is also needed for
> other
> projects
>
I believe it is more work than porting improvements to LLVM and making
LLVM usable.
Significantly more work.
>
> We would keep
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 17:58 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 November 2005 17:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > The initial impression I get is that LLVM involves starting from scratch.
>
> I thought it would basically "only" replace the GIMPLE parts of the
> compiler. That is,
>
> FE
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 19:25 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | I'd actually like to make this a requirement, regardless of the option
> | chosen.
>
> Amen.
>
Uh, IPA of any sort is generally not about speed.
It's fine to say compile ti
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 10:49 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 01:47:12PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Uh, IPA of any sort is generally not about speed.
>
> Except that we're talking about replacing all the tree optimizations
> all of the time w
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 19:57 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 19:25 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> |
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:21 -0600, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > Okay, but you need to understand that reasonable bounds for compiling
> > the entire program at once are usually 3x-7x more (and in the worst
> > case, even wore) than doing it seperately.
> >
> > That is the case with completely state
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 00:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 05:07:12PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> |
> | >>(2) Is it normal that "svk push" takes more than 5 minute
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > Most svn side operations create subpools for loops that may allocate
> > per-iteration memory due to calls to other functions, etc, and clear it
> > each iteration to avoid such per iteration allocations become too large.
> > Some don't.
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 12:59 -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > > > > Actually, i just removed the need for most stat calls during
> > > > > update in 1.4.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Dan, that's great, but for the remaining i/o calls, it
> > > > really does matter if you use long/paths/with/lots/of
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 02:14 +, shreyas krishnan wrote:
> Hi
> I am trying to understand the workings of alias analysis and why
> it behaves it a particular way. I am using the alias analysis branch
> of gcc4.0
>
> I find that for the following snippet of code
> main(
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 11:58 -0800, Devang Patel wrote:
> > >
> > > With our limited resources, we cannot really afford to go off on a
> > > multi-year tangent nurturing and growing a new technology just to add
> > > a
> > > new feature.
> > >
> > What makes you think implementing LTO from scratch i
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 22:08 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The patch below teaches points-to analysis about restrict qualifiers
> of incoming parameters. It is modeled after the special handling
> of malloc result type pointers, namely creating fake variables we
> point to and thus trigger creat
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 02:01 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> I just tried to check in a change on the 4.1 branch. I get this
> nice little message :
>
> svn: Commit failed (details follow):
> svn: Authorization failed
> svn: Your commit message was left in a temporary file:
> svn:'/fuel98/export
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:49 +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:32:57PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > While doing svn diff, I've noticed
> > gcc/config/i386/xm-dgux.h
> > gcc/config/i386/xm-sysv3.h
> > gcc/config/i386/xm-sun.h
> > gcc/config/i386/scodbx.h
> > files popped out
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 14:53 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 7:49 AM, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > There seem to be more conversion glichtes. I retrieved gcc-2_95-branch
> > from the svn repository and diffed it with my CVS checkout. The diff
> > contained lots of differences.
> > Many fil
This case looks like this:
typedef struct
{
unsigned char a : 2;
unsigned char b : 3;
unsigned char c : 1;
unsigned char d : 1;
unsigned char e : 1;
} a_struct;
foo (flags)
a_struct *flags;
{
return (flags->c != 0
|| flags->d != 1
|| flags->e != 1
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 21:55 -0700, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > This is *already* wrong, AFAICT, because reg:QI 58 is uninitialized, and
> > we are trying to use it's value. Why do we do this?
>
> This may have bee
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 14:17 -0500, Domagoj D wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could anyone recommend a good reference (paper/book/webpage/...)
> about the "bag of pages" GC algorithm used in GCC?
There is none, AFAIK.
> Also, is there
> any document about the specifics of GCC implementation (besides
> GCC Inter
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:21 -0500, Domagoj D wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> > > Could anyone recommend a good reference (paper/book/webpage/...)
> > > about the "bag of pages" GC algorithm used in GCC?
> > There is none, AFAIK.
>
> Argh, how am I supposed to figure out the arcane lore of GCC programmers
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 00:48 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Someone caused a >10% compile time regression yesterday for CSiBE, see
> http://www.csibe.org/draw-diag.php?branchid=mainline&flags=-Os&rel_flag=--none--&dataview=Timeline&finish_button=Finish&draw=sbs&view=1&basephp=l-sbs
>
>
>
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 19:01 +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In previous versions of GCC before yesterday, "make all" used to do a
> > normal build
> > but now I am getting a full bootstrap which is not what I wanted as I
> > was just testing
> > objecti
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 08:45 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 09:35:22AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > H. J. Lu wrote:
> > >How can I rebuild stage 1 compiler with the system compiler? I used
> > >to be able to do
> > >
> > ># cd gcc
> > ># make unstage1
> > ># make restag
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:27 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark K. Smith wrote:
> > Additionally to the obstacles to adopt LLVM mentioned by Diego, I
> > named usage of C++ (although it has advantages too) and patents. LLVM
> > should be checked for usage of compiler pa
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 12:01 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:47 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 11:27 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >> On Dec 16, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark K. Smith wrote:
> >>> Additionally to the obstacles
(From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01283.html)
This patch is okay.
(Though please try to watch the sniping in the future, there is no need
to be uncivil).
On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 16:20 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I noticed that if I try not to mark a variable as escaping, we don't
> get the function
> call to have V_MAY_DEF for that variable.
Which is correct.
>
> For an example in this Fortran code:
> function i()
> INTEGER :: i
> INTEGER :: t
>
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 02:12 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I noticed that we add a constraint for each variable that is assigned
> to the
> return value of a function call even though that information is useless
> for
> non pointers?
> Is there a reason why we do this?
Laziness.
>
On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 10:22 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Hi rth,
> >
> > The stack space sharing you added to cfgexpand.c breaks RTL alias
> > analysis.
> >
> > For example, the attached test case breaks for pentiumpro at -O2.
> > The problem apparently is that the se
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 15:47 +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> This is slightly off-topic for this list, but I
> just noticed that Subversion 1.3.0 is now finally
> available:
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/NewsItemView?newsItem
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 10:37 +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> On 1/4/06, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I wonder if gcc.gnu.org would be moving to this
> > > version any time soon.
> >
> > gcc.gnu.org has been running 1.3 development and rc's
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 13:37 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Andrew Pinski writes:
> >
> > On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:09 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > > I've been experimenting with devirtualizing method calls, and
> > > sometimes a construct like this can pay dividends:
> >
> > > Another possibi
Try removing the offending directory (gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/special) and
run svn cleanup again, updating the tree afterwards. If you didn't have
any local changes in that directory you should not lose anything. If the
problem persists then you probably have a hardware problem.
Just "for the re
On Sun, 2006-01-08 at 18:05 -0600, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Try removing the offending directory (gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/
> >> special) and
> >> run svn cleanup again, updating the tree after
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Bernd Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your merges are spamming the bugzilla database and anybody who is on
the CC list of the affected bugs.
both 20470 and 19199 got 1.2 Megabytes of ChangeLog.
Argh. That's a side effect
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Joern RENNECKE wrote:
Your merges are spamming the bugzilla database and anybody who is on the CC
list of the affected bugs.
both 20470 and 19199 got 1.2 Megabytes of ChangeLog.
Argh. That's a side effect of the merge script I wasn't expecting. Wh
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 00:55 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> >> The merge script relies only on the svnmerge-integrated property, not
> >> on the commit messages?
> >
> >
> > Right.
The chain of inferences that the compiler would need to do to properly
diagnose this case is beyond the scope of the mechanical transformations.
The reasoning you need to implement to catch these cases could even be
reduced to the halting problem.
I hate to bring this up, because it's a "half-tr
On Thu, 2006-01-12 at 11:24 -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:13:06PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I hate to bring this up, because it's a "half-troll", but the halting
> > problem is *not* undecidable on the machines we use everyday, becaus
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 21:49 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 1/15/06, Tobias Schlüter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > In looking at compiles times, I missed looking at memory usage:
> >
> > Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > > On an AMD, the 20060105 build gives
> > >
> > > tree SSA rewrite
On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 22:24 +0100, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I guess the fix for PR tree-optimization/22555 could make some difference
> > if fortran uses a lot of structures with embedded arrays. Basically this
> > enables decomposing these structures for aliasing purpo
On Mon, 2006-01-16 at 00:24 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2006-01-15 at 22:24 +0100, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> > > Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > I guess the fix for PR tree-optimization/22555 co
501 - 600 of 1072 matches
Mail list logo
