On 19 October 2006 15:36, Bruce Korb wrote:
> I was going to re-subscribe my dropped subscription to gcc-patches,
> but the only links (that I can find) on gcc.gnu.org lead to the archives,
> not to the subscription page. Thanks - Bruce
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Search for "Subscribing/un
On 30 October 2006 13:36, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Can anybody tell me the purpose of the testcase
> testsuite\gcc.dg\special\gcsec-1.c in the gcc testsuite ?
> Is it something related with garbage clooection?
Yes, but not the gcc garbage collector but the linker's section-based g
On 30 October 2006 18:01, Marcelo Marchi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need some help from gcc gurus regarding delivering source code
> I have a application that needs to be delivered to be compiled on my
> customer side, BUT it cannot make changes or have any understanding
> about code.
> This deli
Hello gcc-hackers,
Tracking down a gcse bug while unrolling a loop where the count is known to
be one, I've narrowed the problem down to the actions of
commit_edge_insertions and bypass_conditional_jumps, and I could use a little
help in appreciating the reasoning behind what they're /tryi
On 31 October 2006 20:21, Igor Bukanov wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 and 4.0.3 incorrectly accepts the following program:
>
> void f();
>
> void g()
> {
> return f();
> }
>
> No warning are issued on my Ubuntu Pentium-M box. Is it a known bug?
>
> Regards, Igor
Yep. PR 5678. This patch worked f
On 02 November 2006 01:38, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Tracking down a gcse bug while unrolling a loop where the count is
>> known to be one, I've narrowed the problem down to the actions of
>> commit_edge_insertions and bypass_conditio
On 02 November 2006 06:10, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 11/2/06, Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher might even have plans for reorganizing jump bypassing
>> already as part of his CSE/GCSE overhaul?
>
> Yes, and one part of that plan is to pre-split all critical edges so
> t
On 02 November 2006 13:12, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> I would say, on looking at it, that the order of items under "Status" is
>> slightly confusing; it seems to me that "Active Development" ought go
>> next to "Next Release Series".
>
> That's a good poin
On 07 November 2006 16:33, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Ricardo FERNANDEZ PASCUAL writes:
> > I have done some experiments to try to understand what is happening, and
> > I am a bit confused by the bahavior of GCC. Consider the following C
> > function:
> >
> > static struct { int w; } s;
> >
> >
On 08 November 2006 12:25, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Basile,
>
> * Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:19:16PM CET:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AboutGCCConfiguration
> If you need a [ ... ]
> The first chapter of the Automake 1.10 manual [ ... ]
> The Autobook and the
On 08 November 2006 16:19, 'Ralf Wildenhues' wrote:
> * Dave Korn wrote on Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 04:59:34PM CET:
>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/AboutGCCConfiguration
> [...]
>> You don't really "get" wiki, do you? ;-)
>
> Oh, I didn&#
On 08 November 2006 08:13, FX Coudert wrote:
>> Suggestion: We should make sure we can accommodate F2003 with
>> 4.2 and 4.3 by increasing the possible number of flags as needed.
>
> I'm in favour of that, and I already started writing the necessary
> patch. But it looks like we'll have to bump
On 10 November 2006 07:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I compared the generated code with an equivalent explicit test,
>> and discovered that gcc uses a separate rtx for the intermediate:
>>
>> i = 0xf;
>> if (j >= 16)
>> {
>> int i2;
>> i2
On 10 November 2006 07:34, Brooks Moses wrote:
> The Fortran front end currently has a lang.opt entry of the following form:
>
>ffixed-line-length-
>Fortran RejectNegative Joined UInteger
>
> I would like to add to this the following option which differs in the
> last character, but shou
On 10 November 2006 15:01, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> In any case a '+' constraint doesn't make any difference this early in
> the RTL passes. combine doesn't look at constraints.
bah, of course! Ignore me, I'll just go sit in the dunce's corner for a
while :)
cheers,
DaveK
--
Ca
On 10 November 2006 17:55, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:17:29AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> "Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> 1. What could be the reason for this behavior?
>>
>> I'm really shooting in the dark here, but my guess is that you
On 10 November 2006 20:06, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
>> option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated
>> interchangeably for /all/ options with
On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> But that's already not possible -- that's essentially how I got into
> this problem in the first place. If one tries to define both of those,
> the declaration of the enumeration-type holding the option
On 12 November 2006 03:35, Howard Chu wrote:
> Here's a different example, which produces the weaker warning
> warning: type-punning to incomplete type might break strict-aliasing rules
>
> struct foo;
>
> int blah(int fd) {
> int buf[BIG_ENOUGH];
> void *v = buf;
> str
On 12 November 2006 04:16, Howard Chu wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 12 November 2006 03:35, Howard Chu wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If we go through the temporary variable v, there's no warning. If we
>>> don't use the temporary variable, we
I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/dk/gnu/obj'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap comparison failure!
./cfg.o differs
./cfgloopanal.o differs
./loop
On 12 November 2006 16:50, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:44:36PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Comparing stages 2 and 3
>> warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs
>> warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs
>> warning: ./cc1obj-checksum.o differs
>> Bootstr
On 10 November 2006 22:31, 'Rask Ingemann Lambertsen' wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 07:11:34PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> No, surely you don't want to do that! You really need a movdi pattern -
>> even more so if there are no natural DImode-sized regis
On 11 November 2006 00:14, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> I think that for this one case we should just say that you have to supply
>> both forms -ffixed-line-length-none and -ffixed-line-length=none.
>
>
On 13 November 2006 12:27, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> (insn 94 91 95 6 (set (reg:SI 12 a4)
> (mem/c:SI (reg:SI 12 a4) [0 D.1863+0 S4 A32])) 15 {movsi_load} (nil)
> (nil))
>
> (insn 95 94 31 6 (set (reg:SI 13 a5 [orig:12+4 ] [12])
> (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 12 a4)
>
On 13 November 2006 12:37, Dave Korn wrote:
> You *must* implement a movdi expander, and it has to be clever enough to
> notice when one of the output registers is going to clobber one of the input
> operands and emit the two SImode halves of the move in the opposite order.
Take
On 02 November 2006 01:38, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Tracking down a gcse bug while unrolling a loop where the count is
>> known to be one, I've narrowed the problem down to the actions of
>> commit_edge_insertions and bypass_conditio
On 14 November 2006 01:51, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2006, at 03:21, Mike Stump wrote:
>> The cost of my assembler is around 1.0% (ppc) to 1.4% (x86)
>> overhead as measured with -pipe -O2 on expr.c,. If it was
>> converted, what type of speedup would you expect?
>
> Given that CPU usage i
On 14 November 2006 03:30, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> At most there is about 40 lines of code in each of them.
>
> PCH is when you have 500,000 lines of C++ code in the main .h file,
> and 20 lines in the .C file. :-)
Nonono, PCH is when you hav
On 14 November 2006 18:30, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> The main place where threading may make sense, especially
>>> with LTO, is the linker. This is a longer lived task, and
>>> is the last step of c
On 14 November 2006 15:38, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Geert Bosch wrote:
>
>> Given that CPU usage is at 100% now for most jobs, such as
>> bootstrapping GCC, there is not much room for any improvement
>> through threading.
>
> Geert, I find this a bit incomprehensible, the whole point
> of threading
On 14 November 2006 19:40, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:15:19PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Geert's followup explained this seeming anomaly: he means that the crude
>> high-level granularity of "make -j" is enough to keep all cpus busy at
>> 1
On 19 November 2006 16:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
"This file can be found in the same directory that
contains cc1 (run gcc -print-prog-name=cc1 to find it)."
>>> I think that indicates someone trying to be overly clever when they
On 01 December 2006 08:13, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I have built a static runtime library and i want the linker to access
>> it automatically without having to pass it explicitly.
>
> Wrong list, this one is for GCC development, not development with GCC.
So, the answer from this list is "add i
On 18 December 2006 19:31, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>> Thus, the transformation is safe in this specific case on i386.
>> However, shifting a 32-bit value left by 33 bits would not be safe.
>
> That's the case where the transformation IS safe, since shifting a
> 32-bit value
On 17 December 2006 12:56, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Currently Wextra warns about a pointer compared against integer zero
> with <, <=, >, or >=. This warning is not available in C++ (the
> documentation does not say this) and it is implemented in
> gcc/c-typeck.c (build_binary_op) in this mann
On 20 December 2006 00:39, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 20/12/06, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Heh. Or you could always make it a divide-by-zero error instead :)
>
> Oh, sorry. I didn't get this. If you would be so kind to elaborate...
Possibly the
On 20 December 2006 02:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Paul Brook wrote:
Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
>>>
>>> We have an option for that. It's called -O0.
>>>
>>> Pretty much all optimization will change the behavior of your p
On 20 December 2006 02:40, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 20 December 2006 02:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>>>> Paul Brook wrote:
>>>>>> Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
>>>>>> as
On 20 December 2006 16:25, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 20 December 2006 02:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> Paul Brook wrote:
>>>>> Pretty much all optimization will change the behavior of your program.
>>>>
>>>> Now
On 20 December 2006 20:16, Seongbae Park wrote:
> On 12/20/06, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>> We (in a major, commercial application) ran into exactly this issue.
>>> 'asm volatile("lock orl $0,(%%esp)"::)' is your friend when this
On 20 December 2006 21:42, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Particularly lock-free queues whose correct
>>> operation is critically dependent on the order in which the loads and
>>> stores are performed.
>>
>> No, absolutely not. Lock-
On 21 December 2006 02:50, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> C is no longer a kind of high-level assembly laguage:
>> it's defined by a standard, in terms of an abstract machine, and some
>> operations are not well-defined.
>
> that does not mean
Afternoon all,
I was trying to recover my password for the gcc wiki, and it doesn't work:
when I enter my email and click the button, I see an error message at the top
of the page saying:
{u'[EMAIL PROTECTED]': (550, 'relaying denied')}
I believe this is reporting an error at the sourc
On 21 December 2006 21:54, Ayal Zaks wrote:
>> Something along these lines may be useful to do in the vectorizer when we
>> get code like this: > ((char)x) = ((char)( ((int)((char)x)) <<
>> ((int)c) ) )
>> and don't feel like doing all the unpacking of chars to ints and then
>> packing the i
On 22 December 2006 00:59, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> Or this, absolutely typical C code. i386 arch can compare
> 16 bits at a time here (luckily, no alighment worries on this arch):
Whaddaya mean, no alignment worries? Misaligned accesses *kill* your
performance!
I know this doesn't affect c
On 30 December 2006 11:49, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
Nor would I relish the prospect of keeping wrapv assumptions out of
GCC as other developers make further contributions, as the wrapv
assumption is so natural and pervasive.
>>> It's neither natural not pervasive to
On 31 December 2006 18:47, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The question is not whether GCC should support wrapv
> semantics; it already does, if you specify -fwrapv.
> The question is merely whether wrapv should be the default
> with optimization levels -O0 thro
On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
>
>> So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calling _mcount.
>
> It just that it is my impression that gcc list is more
>
On 13 January 2007 12:55, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 04:08:18AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> Much later, the warning was given a name, Walways-true [3], since the
>> warning message said explicitly that something will always be true.
>> However, Andrew Mor
On 13 January 2007 14:00, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13 January 2007 12:55, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
>>
>> if (func)
>> {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> it'll be bad to warn about
>>
>> if (timerstruct-
On 15 January 2007 15:02, ying lcs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you please tell me if there is any performance gain in the output
> program if i switch from gcc 3.4 to gcc 4.1 on Red hat Enterprise
> linux 4?
>
> Thank you.
Yes, you can expect at least a 20dB gain in SNR, a 12% increase in miles per
On 16 January 2007 18:23, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> \
>> No, because the instruction has actually two result values:
>>
>> - the remainder, which you could safely set to zero (not 1!)
>>
>> - the quotient, which is affected by the overflow and there may be
>> compiler and
On 16 January 2007 18:42, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 16 January 2007 18:23, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>>> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>>> \
>>>> No, because the instruction has actually two result values:
>>>>
>&g
On 17 January 2007 19:09, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 05:48:34PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> From a performance/convenience angle, the best place to handle this is
>> either libc or the kernel. Either of these can quite easily fix up
>> the operands when a trap happens, with zero
On 24 January 2007 12:51, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> Your conclusion may well be correct. The question for this group is:
>> what's the best that GCC can do to serve the community/society?
>
> Do all it can to discourage people from writing safety- or
> security-critical code in a language they do
On 03 March 2007 20:15, Fabio Giovagnini wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'd like to develop a tool able to do the following things:
> 1) to load all the .h and .c/.cpp files;
> 2) to analyze allo the data struct / unions and classes;
> 3) to give me for each data member of a struct or union and for each data
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
> myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
> It's using these flags by default:
> -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>
> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
> I wonder where it has gone to.
>
>
> Any suggestions ??
1. Always pipe the build output to a file so
On 06 March 2007 20:12, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> And
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
>
> Nick
Effectively that's what
On 07 March 2007 15:05, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap t
On 07 March 2007 15:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Moreover, for some reason when using malloc, a lot of poisonous malloc
> warning come up which are solved by using xmalloc instead, which is
> another thing I cannot figure out. What is better in xmalloc than
> malloc?
Take a look, the source for
On 07 March 2007 16:16, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow
On 07 March 2007 17:44, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
> questioning Paul why he said: "I consider rejecting mixed
> code/declarations to be a feature"
> I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
> containing //,
On 08 March 2007 11:46, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> when using functions from libiberty, I'm for example using xstrdup and
> xmalloc but free is not defined as free or xfree afail nor strlen so
> how should I include things? Before system.h and then standard libs or
> the other way aro
On 08 March 2007 12:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Could someone scan those pages and send them to me, please?
>
> I received some private mails from people that are concerned about
> copyright issues and all that.
A few pages for personal
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Misc.html#Misc
- Macro: FUNCTION_MODE
An alias for the machine mode used for memory references to functions
being called, in call RTL expressions. On most machines this should be QImode.
On 13 March 2007 13:52, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When programming, due to my journeys through C++ recently, I've been
> using 0 instead of NULL. Strangely gcc compilation doesn't warn me
> about it. Is it ok to do this? (So far, I had no problems). Is there
> anything I should be aware
On 13 March 2007 14:02, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Kai Tietz writes:
>
> > I want to remove some trailing whitespaces from gcc source as coding
> style > demands. Also I wrote, while doing a small tool for that, a
> feature to > replace horiz. tabs by spaces. But the question is by which
> width s
On 13 March 2007 15:06, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Dave Korn writes:
> > On 13 March 2007 14:02, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > > Kai Tietz writes:
> > >
> > > > I want to remove some trailing whitespaces from gcc source as coding
> > > style
On 13 March 2007 15:12, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 03:02:44PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Can you explain that value? It's just that 1) I see vast acres and
>> acres of code where the tabstop size is two spaces 2) the coding standard
>>
Hello Gcc hackers,
I don't even know if what I'm doing is supposed to be possible, but I'm
trying it anyway!
To oversimplify the situation, I've got an external memory-mapped peripheral
that does multiply operations. It's got three SImode registers; you write a
word each to the multipli
On 13 March 2007 19:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The intermediate cause is that lreg considers all the special-purpose reg
>> classes when allocating, and for some reason decides that several of the
>> speci
On 13 March 2007 19:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The intermediate cause is that lreg considers all the special-purpose reg
>> classes when allocating, and for some reason decides that several of the
>> speci
On 15 March 2007 05:00, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> I have a define_expand with the pattern name mov and a
> define_insn mov_store
> The predicate in define_expand is general_operand, so that all
> operands are matched.
> While in define_insn i have a predicate which allows only two class of
> register
On 14 March 2007 21:21, Jim Wilson wrote:
> Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
>> (define_insn "movsf_store"
>> [(set (match_operand:SF 0 "memory_operand" "=m")
>> (match_operand:SF 1 "float_reg""f"))]
>
> You must have a single movsf define_insn that accepts all alternatives
> so that reload will w
Hi all,
When regclass determines that placing an operand into either one of several
register classes would have the same cost, it picks the numerically highest
one in enum reg_class ordering.
In my particular circumstances this is not good, because a lot of the
high-numbered reg classes
On 15 March 2007 15:53, Dave Korn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When regclass determines that [ ... ]
> So, is there actually anything inconsistent or incorrect about setting up
> my reg classes in this fashion?
>
> #define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS { \
>
On 15 March 2007 16:12, Dave Korn wrote:
>> So, is there actually anything inconsistent or incorrect about setting up
>> my reg classes in this fashion?
>>
>> #define REG_CLASS_CONTENTS { \
>> { 0x, 0x, 0x }, /* NO_REGS
On 16 March 2007 15:30, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> But it is ok to use a define_expand (that accepts all alternatives) for
>>> movsf and use that to generate one of several movsf_ insns, isn&#x
Morning all,
I'm not entirely familiar with the format and meaning of all the terms used
in the reload pass dump files, I was wondering if someone could comment on
whether this seems sane or not:
mul.c: In function `try_mulsi3':
mul.c:5: error: unable to find a register to spill in class
On 19 March 2007 17:03, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> (define_insn "mulsi3"
>> [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "register_operand" "=d")
>> (mult:SI (match_operand:SI 2 "register_operand" "r")
>&g
Except when travelling backwards in time and replying to a post that hasn't
been written yet!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
On 19 March 2007 20:21, Mike Stump wrote:
> Never top post.
>
> On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Markus Franke wrote:
>
>> Just anot
On 19 March 2007 22:41, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> yeah, the trouble is that we don't seem to agree on what is good for
> long-term, or if and when we agree whether we would find and allocate
> resources to implement the solution. So, we end up accumulating
> small% regressions over small% regr
On 19 March 2007 22:16, Karthikeyan M wrote:
> What should I do if I want a list of all file-scope variables inside
> my own pass ?
>
> The file_scope variable is local to c-decl.c . Is there a reason why
> the scope holding variables are local to c-decl.c ?
Because we want to keep front-, mid
/external_source/gnu/gcc-3.3.3/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/unsorted/udivmod4.c
: In function `main':
/external_source/gnu/gcc-3.3.3/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/unsorted/udivmod4.c
:56: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 208 207 209 5 0x0 (set (reg:SI 3 r3)
(const_string "")) -1 (nil)
(
On 21 March 2007 16:09, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 01:11:36PM +0100, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> #include
>> void *(my_malloc_hook)(size_t) = malloc;
>>
>> GCC tells me, that malloc isn't a constant symbol. Clear malloc is defined
>> by using the attribute dllimport, because it c
On 23 March 2007 12:00, Christian Joensson wrote:
> For some reason, yet unknow to me, I don't seem to be able to
> bootstrap gcc trunk on cygwin due to some issue with configuring in
> intl:
It's generic.
> checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error:
> C compiler
On 23 March 2007 17:01, Marc Espie wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
>
>> Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
>> efficient code? :-
On 23 March 2007 18:11, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:55:38PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$1>"
>>> - REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{$1}"
>>> + REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
>>
>> You n
On 22 March 2007 22:08, Brian Dessent wrote:
> The real problem seems to be that the libgcc is broken:
>
> configure:2121: /home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./prev-gcc/xgcc
> -B/home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./prev-gcc/
> -B/usr/local/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
> conftest.c >&5
> /home/User/cvsroot/gcc-obj/./pre
On 25 March 2007 07:37, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> # 405 "/usr/include/stdio.h" 3 4
>>
>> [ Which is from newlib (libc/include/stdio.h) if anyone reading this
>
On 27 March 2007 11:26, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> Between 4.3.0 20070303 and 4.3.0 20070326 the "no newline at end of
> file" warning changed to an error. Interestingly enough, I cannot see
> any obvious change to libcpp/lex.c or the ChangeLog.
>
> Does anyone else see this and know whether this
On 27 March 2007 16:07, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> * Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 13:13]:
So if you are seeing this in C++, the change was intentional because
PR2
On 27 March 2007 17:55, DJ Delorie wrote:
> When cross compiling with a sysroot, you sometimes end up with nested
> backticks.
>
> The case we're seeing it with is m32r-elf, where gcc_tooldir is defined
> thusly:
>
> gcc_tooldir = $(libsubdir)/$(unlibsubdir)/`echo $(exec_prefix) | sed -e
> 's|
On 27 March 2007 18:25, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Or how about using ':=' to force immediate evaluation?
>
> That won't help, since backquotes are only expanded by the shell, not by
> make.
Doh
On 28 March 2007 11:57, Kai Tietz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I noticed a seg-fault in gengtype on cygwin bootstap. Guilty seem to be,
> that in method "oprintf" the standard c-library call "vsnprintf" is used,
> which is on MSVCRT broken. By a patching it to use vasnprintf it seems to
> work. Did somebo
On 25 March 2007 07:37, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Brian Dessent wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> # 405 "/usr/include/stdio.h" 3 4
>>
>> [ Which is from newlib (libc/include/stdio.h) if anyone reading this
>> doesn't have a Cygwi
On 28 March 2007 15:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99
>> after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That
1 - 100 of 1443 matches
Mail list logo
