On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> > Can you please clarify what "GNU ld is not completely usable" means?
>> > Is that referring to DWARF support? to compatibility with specific AIX
>> > releases? to compatibility with AIX DWARF feature?
>>
>> Sorry, I meant what "GNU ld is n
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> It does not look like the changes were merged into the FSF tree. This
>> also does not support some of the more recent AIX features added to
>> GCC.
>
> Tristan is usually pretty good at sending these sorts of patches.
> I will ask him on M
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:10 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I was able to speak to Tristan, yesterday, and he confirmed that
> we haven't been able to contribute a few of the patches he wrote.
> Unfortunately, his TODO list is more than full, at the moment, and
> we don't think he'll have time to work
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> We haven't done any work to support TLS in gnu as/ld on AIX (other
> than ignore these sections for now to avoid generating hard errors), so
> enabling TLS in GCC would indeed cause some troubles, although we don't
> use TLS directly in GNAT
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
accepted the Synopsys DesignWare ARC port for inclusion in GCC and appointed
Joern Rennecke as maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Joern on his new role.
Joern, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Thomas Baier wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I've just subscribed to the list and I hope this is the right place for
> the following question.
>
> The operating system I'd like to use gcc for (OS-9, for the curious)
> requires an ABI, where global variables are only access
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
> it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
> accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
> the GCC community w
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
> it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
> accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
> the GCC community w
I will inquire with the FSF Copyright Clerk.
- David
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Am 07.01.2013 08:44, schrieb Maxim Kuvyrkov:
>> On 4/01/2013, at 12:54 AM, Rainer Emrich wrote:
>>> I like to contribute
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Also note that for SPEC -funroll-loops helps GCC (yes ... we don't
> enable that by default at -O3, we probably should).
Richi,
Are you suggesting enabling -funroll-loops by default at -O3? When I
checked earlier this year, GCC was too a
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Damian Rouson wrote:
> I'm interested in contributing to the gfortran compiler. Please send
> me any forms or instructions I need to follow regarding copyright
> assignment.
I sent the forms directly.
- David
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
>> > GCC trunk remains in release branch mode, with only regression fixes
>> > and documentation changes allowed.
>>
>> is there a chance to get this committed to GCC 4.8 even if its a P4 bug
>
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 16:05, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> If no new P1 appears within a week,
>
> I may be about to file one. What priority would "Java doesn't compile on a
> secondary platform" count as? There's a trivial bug in libffi and I already
> p
> Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> I suspect that the real reason for the change in save/restore is because
Andrew> not using lmw/stmw is faster. That's just a guess though. gcc could
probably
Andrew> be fixed to use ldmw/stmw if -Os is used.
Andrew> Anyway, now we've found something specific
> Andrew Haley writes:
Andrew> Err, why not?
Because the fixed register means it no longer is a continuous
sequence of registers. And the PowerPC port does not break it up into two
sequences. And fixed registers in that range are not part of any standard
ABI.
David
> t veith writes:
Thomas> when trying to installl gcc 4.2.3 on AIX 5.3 bootstraps fails in stage3
in configure-target-libmudflap when trying to detect used thread-model:
Thomas> checking for thread model used by GCC... aix
Thomas> aix is an unsupported thread package
Thomas> make[1]: *** [co
Jakub,
PPC970 and POWER6 support Altivec and that feature is enabled for
those processor by default. Now with inlining, auto-vectorization, and
copying via Altivec registers, GCC needs to save and restore the registers
correctly for overlapped use enabled implicitly. PPC64 Linux enables
> Janis Johnson writes:
Janis> I have a patch, written since this thread started, that saves and
Janis> restores AltiVec registers based on TARGET_ALTIVEC instead of
Janis> TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI. It passes gcc.target/powerpc tests and 176.gcc
Janis> with "-O3 -maltivec -mabi=no-altivec". I'll p
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
Jakub> As I've mentioned last week, I've created branches/gcc-4_3-branch.
Jakub> The trunk is now 4.4 stage 1, the branch is open for regression bugfixes
Jakub> and documentation fixes only, but additionally all checkings require
I had hoped that you would not
I misread Janis's latest patch that I approved.
The patch was suppose to enable -mabi=altivec when -maltivec is
enabled, not change the default ABI.
For other OSes, -mabi=altivec is the default, so -maltivec just
works and produces correct code. If a user enables -maltive
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> However, if I understand correct, some users have probably been
Mark> implicitly using those options because they were using "-mcpu=970", or
Mark> otherwise specifying an AltiVec CPU. It seems desirable in the abstract
Mark> that this code still be binary-comp
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> So, if we wanted to make this interoperate better, we'd have to
Mark> introduce dynamic stack alignment in every externally visible function,
Mark> thereby penalizing the average user who isn't trying to support linking
Mark> with legacy code. Right?
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
expanded Jakub Jelinek's OpenMP responsibilities to maintainer for
all of OpenMP.
Please join me in congratulating Jakub on his new role.
Jakub, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
> Duncan Purll writes:
Duncan> I am in the process of verifying that the gnu assembler produces object
code which corresponds on an instruction-by-instruction basis with the
interleaved source / assembly language listing obtained via -Wa,-ahls. This is
for the purposes of software certifica
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
accepted the picoChip port for inclusion in GCC and appointed
Hariharan Sandanagobalane and Daniel Towner as port maintainers.
The initial patch needs approval from a GCC GWP maintainer before it may
be committed.
Please
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
accepted the CR16 port for inclusion in GCC and appointed
Pompapathi Gadad as maintainer for the CRX and CR16 ports. The initial CR16
patch needs approval from a GCC GWP maintainer before it may be committed.
Please join
> Joel Sherrill writes:
Joel> If I understand this correctly, it is checking that the
Joel> target HW actually supports the Neon extension.
Joel> Is this right?
Joel> Where does this get invoked?
Joel> I think I am on the edge of understanding a solution
Joel> path. It sounds like I need to
> Joel Sherrill writes:
Joel> Those all look like checks to see if the compiler itself
Joel> supports Altivec -- not a run-time check on the hardware
Joel> like the Neon check_effective_target_arm_neon_hw appears
Joel> to be.
Look at check_vmx_hw_available again.
David
> Joel Sherrill writes:
Joel> FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/405-mullhw-1.c scan-assembler mullhw
Joel> Are those things which would be expected to fail on a vanilla
Joel> 603e target without networking or disk?
Joel> Is this another category of tests to avoid somehow?
405-mullhw-1.c is i
The engineers currently are not listed in the FSF copyrights
assignment file.
David
I would prefer feature-based.
TARGET_HARD_FLOAT represents the presence of FPUs.
TARGET_FPRS represents the presence of FP register set because
one variant used GPRs for FP operations.
E500 then added another variant with double-precision FP in the
GPRs.
You need to negotiate this with the E500 developers who created
this set of options.
David
> Robert C Seacord writes:
Robert> I believe the vulnerability is that gcc may *silently*
Robert> discard the overflow checks and that this is a recent change in
behavior.
Robert> You are also right that the popularity of gcc is one of the reasons we
Robert> decided to publish on this.
> Robert C Seacord writes:
Robert> my thinking is that if this behavior has been in place for many years,
Robert> for example, users will have had the opportunity to discover the
changed
Robert> behavior.
This explanation seems to be premised on users never moving an
application to
Nicola,
Please send the project files to Robert Seacord.
David
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 19:12:13 +0200
From: "Robert C. Seacord" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nicol
> Mike writes:
Mike> Is there a short list of steps to get a very minimal machine specific
Mike> back end going? Please point me to some better documents? :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted
http://www.cfdvs.iitb.ac.in/~amv/gcc-int-docs/
Most new backends start by copying an exist
> FX writes:
FX> The performance regression is mainly due to one testcase, induct,
FX> which is taking a 30% hit on IRA. If the performance of that one were
FX> the same with IRA than with the old allocator, the switch would be
FX> (for this benchmark) performance-neutral. So, I have investig
> Luke Dalessandro writes:
Luke> My problem is that unwind-dw2-fde.c seems to be compiled multiple times
during
Luke> a gcc build, and sometimes my additions are found but other times they
are
Luke> not. I am rebuilding again (AIX 5.1), and I'll post more information for
Luke> anyone that
> Luke Dalessandro writes:
Luke> Thank you, this was indeed the problem. I added the needed stubbs in
Luke> gthr-single.h and it now compiles fine. Unfortunately there seems to be
Luke> something wrong with my installation of ld as linking fails with a large
Luke> number of errors of the fo
I will send it privately.
David
> Andreas Jaeger writes:
Andreas> I had the same problem on my PowerPC Linux machine and the workaround
Andreas> I'm using now is to run make with the additional flag
STAGE1_CFLAGS=3D-O.
Andreas> The problem (thanks to Andreas Schwab and Michael Matz for help) is
that
Andreas> .glink and .te
> Andreas Jaeger writes:
Andreas> I'm not a build machinery expert - if anybody has a patch, I'll
happily test it,
Andreas> I'm building on Linux/Powerpc64.
Andreas> Adding the above line to rs6000/x-linux64 did not help me. Btw.
Andreas> we would need it for other files - like gnat1 - as w
>> checking for suffix of object files... configure: error: in
>> `/abuild/aj/gcc-tst/powerpc64-suse-linux-gnu/libgcc':
>> configure: error: cannot compute suffix of object files: cannot compile
>> See `config.log' for more details.
This is the friendly way the GCC build process reports th
> Andreas Jaeger writes:
Andreas> So, it means that --relax is not the right solution for the problem.
Andreas> I'll continue with the STAGE1_CFLAG flag but if anybody else wants me
to
Andreas> test something, please tell me,
Maybe Alan will have some insight about --relax not worki
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > The mailing list webpage still refers to CVS:
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
>> >
>> > Can we rename these lists (perhaps preserving an alias for the old names)
>> > so that they reflect reality?
>>
>> I don'
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> Do these passes actually help on benchmarks?
Mark> I don't think we should be dismissive of "benchmark toy" passes if they
Mark> actually improve benchmarks significantly. We don't have to like it,
Mark> but we should accept that people are going to benchmark
Kenny> 2) Generate the debugging for the types early, and then add an
Kenny> interface that would parse and regenerate the debugging info with
Kenny> the changes. It is quite likely that this would lock gcc
Kenny> completely into dwarf, but that appears to only be a problem for
Kenny> AIX at this
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Aldy Hernandez and Jakub Jelinek as GIMPLE maintainers.
Please join me in congratulating Aldy and Jakub on their new role.
Aldy, Jakub, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
Grigori,
Many of the costs now are handled by GCC parameters. See
gcc/params.def accessed in the source code using PARAM_VALUE.
Many other cost models use macros with "COST in their name, such as
TARGET_RTX_COSTS / rtx_cost
BRANCH_COST (and LOGICAL_OP_NON_SHORT_CIRCUIT)
MEMORY_M
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unlock looks good, but lock has both release and acquire barriers. Even
> worse, the release barrier is a heavyweight sync which is very slow.
> Looking at the gcc documentation, sync_lock_test_and_set only needs an
> aqui
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Anton Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing lwsync wont order is a store followed by a load. Since
> the lwsync will always be paired with a store (the stwcx), we will order
> all accesses before it and provide a release barrier.
Anton,
My one other
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another related issue is that psim in gdb does not currently
> support the lwsync instruction so any code generated using it
> would fail there. Since this is used as the test platform for
> the embedded gcc targets (at lea
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:39 PM, Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Meanwhile I am going to submit your second patch with an added
> comment. The patch permits gcc to generate the same quality code as
> before your first patch.
Why?
As Richard said before:
"... it changes
the heuristi
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:55:17 +0200
>> From: Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Nope, not if it's a (MINUS (symbol_ref sym2) (symbol_ref sym1)).
> *If* valid, that's a constant expression and *should* be wrapped
>
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Richard Sandiford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree. So your plan would be to change rs6000 to an unspec, and drop
>> the problematic hunk in simplify-rtx.c? That would be okay with me, but
>> it's not a small change for rs6000.
>
> Yeah, this is very much my p
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Steve Ellcey as Itanium port co-maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Steve on his new role.
Steve, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
> Joe Buck writes:
Joe> This implies that you think it is the patch author's job to fix the
Joe> problem. And if the patch were incorrect, you'd have an argument.
Joe> But in this case, it seems that the patch is correct, but it exposes
Joe> a problem elsewhere in the compiler (one of Kenner'
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Dorit Nuzman, Richard Guenther, and Zdenek Dvorak as
Auto-Vectorizer maintainers.
Please join me in congratulating Dorit, Richard, and Zdenek on their
new role. Please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS fi
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Ken Zadeck, Seongbae Park, Daniel Berlin, and Paolo Bonzini as
Dataflow maintainers.
Please join me in congratulating Ken, Seongbae, Dan, and Paolo on
their new role. Please update your listings in the MAINTAIN
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Ian Taylor as non-algorithmic Blanket/Global Write Privileges
maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Ian on his
new role. Please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
promoted Diego Novillo to middle-end maintainer and appointed him
non-algorithmic Blanket/Global Write Privileges maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Diego on his
new role. Please update your listings in the MAI
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
Jakub> compiled on ppc64-linux with -O2 -m64 -mminimal-toc
Jakub> leads to bl bar without nop in the following instruction
Jakub> and to sibling call.
Jakub> Now, when this together with bar's definition is linked
Jakub> into a big binary and foo and bar need to have di
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> I think the DECL_EXTERNAL case should go before the visibility checks in
Mark> default_binds_local_p_1. A DECL_EXTERNAL entity never binds locally.
Jakub,
Do you want to follow up with a patch to change the ordering of
tests in default_binds_local_p_1()
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> That would be my recommendation: limit optimizations that require a
Mark> short branch to calls to functions in the same translation unit, not
Mark> just in the same shared object. But, that's just my two cents; the
Mark> Power maintainers might have a different
Emitting a NOP depends on SYMBOL_FLAG_LOCAL.
if (targetm.binds_local_p (decl))
flags |= SYMBOL_FLAG_LOCAL;
PPC64 uses the default binds_local_p() hook, default_binds_local_p_1():
/* If defined in this object and visibility is not default, must be
local. */
else if (DECL
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> Good point -- if there's no definition in the current translation unit,
Mark> then I guess we aren't going to make any bad assumptions about the
Mark> contents of the function. So, I guess that just means that the Power
Mark> back end needs to check for !DECL_EXT
> Jakub Jelinek writes:
Jakub> I guess the right thing to do would be to replace the current
Jakub> 3 uses of SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (x) macro in config/rs6000/*.md
Jakub> with
Jakub> SYMBOL_REF_LOCAL_P (x) && (!TARGET_ARCH64 || !SYMBOL_REF_EXTERNAL_P (x))
Jakub> where TARGET_ARCH64 is replaced b
> Richard Sandiford writes:
Richard> So which of (1) and (2) from my message do think is best? Replace
backend
Richard> uses with "reload_completed" when doing so is safe, or consistently
replace
Richard> it with "reload_in_progress || reload_completed" throughout the
backends?
Richard,
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
Alexandre> It's as mechanical as the change you proposed, except that yours
Alexandre> potentially loses information that would enable someone to recover
Alexandre> !BEFORE_RELOAD_P() out of the expanded version of no_new_pseudos.
Except that no_new_pseudos
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>> Except that no_new_pseudos was not used consistently.
Alex> I'm not sure what you mean by "consistently", but regardless, how
Alex> could any argument possibly make it better to replace it with
Alex> (reload_in_progress || reload_completed)
Alex> rather than
Al
> Alexandre Oliva writes:
Alexandre> Collapsing no_new_pseudos with anything else that doesn't carry the
Alexandre> semantics it currently expresses is a transformation that loses
Alexandre> information. Pretty please don't do this just because the current
Alexandre> code doesn't care about t
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Andreas Krebbel as s390 port co-maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Andreas on his new role.
Andreas, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
By the way, I am seeing the same failure on AIX. The test is
broken for platforms with function descriptors
David
> Doug Gregor writes:
Doug> Could we ask the SC to reconsider the change in the GCC major version
Doug> numbering for GPLv3? Or, at the very least, explain why it is
Doug> important to change the major version number for a mere license
Doug> change?
To avoid confusion among GCC users
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Ian> To pile on after my earlier message, I would say that the change in
Ian> license does not matter at all, not even a tiny bit, for gcc *users*.
Ian> It only matters for gcc *distributors*. And I think the vastly
Ian> smaller population of gcc distributors can be
> Doug Gregor writes:
Doug> It seems obvious to me that it would be easiest to just move today's
Doug> mainline over to GPLv3, and have every GCC release >= 4.3 be GPLv3. We
Doug> could then either cut off the GCC 4.2 branch entirely or leave it
Doug> GPLv2. Then there are no surprises for any
> Dave Korn writes:
Doug> could then either cut off the GCC 4.2 branch entirely or leave it
Doug> GPLv2. Then there are no surprises for anyone.
>> Leaving released branches as GPLv2 is not an option.
Dave> What, even *closed* release branches?
The comment referred to GCC 4.2. GCC
> Benjamin Smedberg writes:
Doug> It seems obvious to me that it would be easiest to just move today's
Doug> mainline over to GPLv3, and have every GCC release >= 4.3 be GPLv3. We
Doug> could then either cut off the GCC 4.2 branch entirely or leave it
Doug> GPLv2. Then there are no surprises f
> Richard Kenner writes:
>> Because the FSF says it is not an option. The FSF holds the
>> copyright and decides on the licensing.
Richard> True, but RMS has been known to change his mind when people point out
to him
Richard> the consequences of a decision.
The GCC SC has not been
> Bernd Schmidt writes:
Bernd> I don't think that's true. Given that all copyrights are assigned to
Bernd> the FSF, the FSF could license these changes as GPLv2+ (in 4.2) and
Bernd> GPLv3+ (in 4.3 and up) without a problem. The original author's wishes
Bernd> do not come into play.
> Bernd Schmidt writes:
Bernd> I don't think that's true. Given that all copyrights are assigned to
Bernd> the FSF, the FSF could license these changes as GPLv2+ (in 4.2) and
Bernd> GPLv3+ (in 4.3 and up) without a problem. The original author's wishes
Bernd> do not come into play.
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Ian> Samba is simply bumping to 3.2.0. They aren't moving from 3.0.26 to
Ian> 3.2.27.
Ian> If you want to release gcc 4.2.2, and then release gcc 4.3.0 from the
Ian> gcc 4.2 branch, and make mainline gcc the eventual gcc 4.4.0, I'm on
Ian> board with that. That is
> Richard Kenner writes:
Richard> Now, suppose I apply it to the GPLv2 version of the file. One could
argue
Richard> that such file is now GPLv3 and I think that'd be correct. But since
the
Richard> parts of the file being patched are identical, the patch is
indistinguishable
Richard> from
Razya,
Many of the tests fail on AIX as well.
David
FAIL: gcc.dg/matrix/matrix-1.c scan-ipa-dump-times Flattened 3 dimensions
1
FAIL: gcc.dg/matrix/matrix-2.c scan-ipa-dump-times Flattened 2 dimensions
1
FAIL: gcc.dg/matrix/matrix-3.c scan-ipa-dump-times Flattened 2 dimensions
1
FAIL: g
> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
Diego> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
Diego> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Diego> Would this patch be OK? Any other suggestions
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
promoted Zdenek Dvorak to full maintainership of all of the GCC
loop infrastructure.
Please join me in congratulating Zdenek on his new role.
Zdenek, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
Dav
I think the cost would be something like:
Index: rs6000.c
===
--- rs6000.c(revision 127484)
+++ rs6000.c(working copy)
@@ -20292,10 +20292,15 @@
*total += COSTS_N_INSNS (2);
return false;
+case CTZ
> Zack Weinberg writes:
Zack> Makes sense. I don't suppose I could persuade you to teach rs6000
Zack> RTX_COSTS about clz and popcount...?
Sure. It's not that difficult to add to the table.
David
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> I think the cost would be something like:
>> +case POPCOUNT:
>> + *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (3);
>> + return false;
Segher> Is that the cost when using popcountb? It is a lot more
Segher> expensive when that instruction isn't available (like on
Segh
> Segher Boessenkool writes:
>> Yes, but do we even create POPCOUNT rtx if the insn isn't
>> supported? Wouldn't we expand or create libcall early?
Segher> I don't know, there's only one way to find out... :-)
I did check. Didn't you?
David
> Ed S Peschko writes:
Ed> which would be fine if the AIX linker works, but I'm getting segmentation
Ed> faults when compiling perl out of the box, using the gcc-4.1.0 compiler
Ed> provided.. I'm wondering if its the compiler, the linker, or both...
You have not provided information f
> Ed S Peschko writes:
Ed> Here's a couple quick ones for you, one that I've had some luck at
unwinding -
Ed> The gcc compiler has a flag '-b' which also is used by the underlying
linker.
Ed> If I for example, change:
Ed> gcc -bmaxdata:0x8000
Ed> to
Ed> gcc -Wl,-bmaxdata:0x800
> Razya Ladelsky writes:
Razya> When passing an address of a local variable as the first argument of
Razya> 'sync_fetch_and_add'
Razya> I get an error of unrecognizable insn.
Razya> Does anyone know why that happens?
Probably a mistake in the rs6000_emit_rsync() procedure.
David
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Krister Walfridsson as NetBSD OS port maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Krister on his new role.
Krister, please update your listing in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
> Matt Lee writes:
Matt> The problem is, that though the loads can be optimized by pipelining
Matt> them. The register allocator has created a dependency by using only r3
Matt> and r4, instead of using the other volatiles.
GCC's register allocator currently is designed to minimize the
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> Rats, I'm getting another bootstap failure on sparc-sun-solaris2.10.
Kaveh> This time it happens in stage2 building libgcc. What happens is that
Kaveh> when it runs configure for stage2 libgcc, I get:
Kaveh> checking for suffix of object files...
Kaveh> configu
> Kaveh R GHAZI writes:
Kaveh> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
Kaveh> 0x002cf780 in reload_combine_note_store (dst=0xff0b90e0, set= optimized out>, data=0x0)
Kaveh> at ../../egcc-SVN20070909/gcc/postreload.c:1018
Kaveh> 1018 reg_state[i].store_ruid = reload_co
I succeed past this failure if I revert Zdenek's iv-opts patch
(r128272).
David
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Peter Bergner, Andrew MacLeod, Vladimir Makarov, Seongbae Park,
and Ken Zadeck as GCC Register Allocation Reviewers.
Please join me in congratulating Peter, Andrew, Vlad, Seongbae and
Ken on their new role. Ple
> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I have not been able to get a clean libstdc++ build on ppc64 for more
Diego> than a month (since 2007-08-23). The failure is always the same.
Diego> While building libstdc++/system-error.cc, I get:
Diego>
/home/dnovillo/perf/sbox/gcc/local.ppc64/src/libstdc++-
501 - 600 of 733 matches
Mail list logo
