Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> >> > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10. >> >> Have you tried a bootstrap with nei

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Jack Howarth wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > >> >> > > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> > > Dennis Clarke-2 wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> >>> This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10. >> >> Have you tried a bootstrap with neither ppl nor cloog ? I

GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate : WARNING: program timed out.

-torture/compile/pr46534.c -Os (test for excess errors) WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O2 -flto (test for excess errors) WARNING: program timed out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O2 -fwhopr (test for excess errors) . . . -- Dennis Clarke dcla

Re: GCC 4.5.2 Release Candidate : WARNING: program timed out.

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >> WARNING: program timed out. >> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/pr46534.c -O0 (test for excess errors) > > This is likely a bug in your assembler. Well, the assembler is this : # file /usr/local/bin/as /usr/local/bin/as: ELF 32-bit LSB ex

4.5.2 20101213 (prerelease) ??

01062.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-12/msg01063.html If there is some other snapshot or RC that I should be testing please let me know. Thank you dear GCC folks. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org

Re: 4.5.2 20101213 (prerelease) ??

> On 13 December 2010 15:31, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Dear GCC folks : >> >> I have been closely watching the testsuite results as they come in and I >> have yet to see anyone do anything with the 4.5.2 RC for Solaris. Other >> than me of course. I have seen som

gcc-4.5.2-RC-20101208 warning in fold-const.c

20101208/gcc/fold-const.c:14267:3: warning: new qualifiers in middle of multi-level non-const cast are unsafe This is probably filed as a bug somewhere but I couldn't find it. -- Dennis

GCC 4.5.2 ?

It is Wed now. Will we see a official release this week ? -- Dennis

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

erely an observation from someone that tries to be very very careful with testing and with testsuite results. -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris ps: thus far GCC 4.5.2 is beaut

Really poor 4.5.2 results on Debian Squeeze with Intel i7

bugurl=http://www.blastwave.org/support --enable-bootstrap EOF After three days ... I gave up waiting. comments welcome . -- Dennis Clarke dcla...@opensolaris.ca <- Email related to the open source Solaris dcla...@blastwave.org <- Email related to open source for Solaris

is there a optimizing opportunity for const std::vector + std::initializer_list replaced with std::array?

gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11 small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with const std::vector/std::arrays + simple operations --- #include #include #include #define USE_ARRAY #if defined(USE_ARRAY) static int calc(const std::array p_ints, const int& p_

Re: is there a optimizing opportunity for const std::vector + std::initializer_list replaced with std::array?

Am 20.09.2013 07:50, schrieb Marc Glisse: (gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org would have been a better list) On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Dennis Luehring wrote: > gcc 4.8.1, -O3 -march=native -std=c++11 > > small example program to check what does the gcc 4.8.1 optimizer do with > const std::vector

Re: error in gcc version 4.6.2 ???

ata definition has no type or storage class [enabled by default] foobar.c:62:9: error: expected declaration specifiers or '...' before string constant foobar.c:64:2: error: expected identifier or '(' before 'return' foobar.c:66:1: error: expected identifier or '(' b

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

tp://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

uld probably be clarified. Would be cool to say "entirely optional". dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> Dennis Clarke writes: > >>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org >>> >>> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from >>> >>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302 >>> >>> and

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

> On 03/02/2012 08:40 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>>> If all goes well, I'd like to release 4.7.0 in about three weeks. >>>> >>>> I'll drop it on Solaris. Give it a push. Do we realy really need that >>>> ppl/cloog stuff? I have

fine grained control over testsuite

timed out. . . . Somewhat annoying as I am in no particular hurry. :-) dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | |

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org

us of virtual processor 1 as of: 03/12/12 11:47:00 on-line since 04/28/11 17:39:48. The i386 processor operates at 400 MHz, and has an i387 compatible floating point processor. titan-i386-SunOS5.8 $ cat /etc/release Solaris 8 2/02 s28x_u7wos_08a INTEL Copyright 2002 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Assembled 18 December 2001 So I have not seen a gmp mpfr or mpc issue, anywhere. HOWEVER, I do use the very latest revs of mpfr,gmp and mpc. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

strange error during make install of 4.6.3

c' gmake[1]: *** [install-gcc] Error 2 gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/opt/bw/src/gcc-4.6.3-SunOS5.8-i386' gmake: *** [install] Error 2 $ Weird. Never saw that on sparc nor anywhere else. There is a pre-existing GCC 4.5.3 as that was the compiler used in stage 1 of the bootstrap. Any tho

Re: strange error during make install of 4.6.3

Also : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2010-02/msg00153.html > > I was surprised to see this pop up during make install : >

gcc-4.6.3 ICE

again. In detail. What would the procedure for that be ? -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

> On 19 March 2012 14:56, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> >> thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html >> >>                === gcc tests === >> >> >> Running target unix >> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c  -O0  

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

>> Hr, tried that and didn't get very far probably because the >> srcdir is at ../gcc-4.6.3 > > I don't think that's the problem. > > Maybe you need > make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=limits-exprparen.c > or > make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=*/limits-exprparen.c > or some other variatio

Re: gcc-4.6.3 ICE

1D936C72FA35B44B +-+-------+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

gnatmake: "xgnatugn.ali" incompatible ALI file, please recompile

trap build with good test results however install fails as seen above. Any enlightened thoughts would be welcome. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Sola

go in 4.7.0 seems to fail quite badly

ve seen better results. Thank you .. dc -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0x1D936C72FA35B44B +-----+---+ | Dennis Clarke | Solaris and Linux and Open Source | | dcla...@blastwave.org | Respect for open standards. | +-+---+

Re: Deprecate 32-bits HP-PA for GCC 4.8?

run either 32-bit Solaris 8 and 9 or 64-bit Solaris 8 and 9. Some people have run Solaris 10 also which is purely a 64-bit kernel. In any case, those are just my thoughts on old legacy Sun gear. Dennis -- -- http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=vinde

the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

this is pass 1 with hopes that by the third time I do this it will be a fine art. Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ? Dennis ps: I am using gcc 4.5.1 to perform the bootstrap and this release has been very well tested : $ which gcc /opt/csw/gcc4/bin/gcc $ $ $CC --version

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

grep ELF | grep -c "ELF 64-bit" 825 $ find . -type f | xargs file | grep ELF | grep -c "ELF 32-bit" 5 .. but .. no solution in sight. However I am way way open to suggestion here. Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> > nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse > than > > before : > > Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly... I can not see my error here and am wondering what the issue is. > > However I am way way open to suggestion here. > > You ne

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

ormation for libmpfr. current=5 age=1 revision=1 been there .. done that .. over and over. > (linker errors involving alloca) > - Build the support libs with --disable-shared to avoid strange > TLS-related loader errors > - Disable -g to avoid linker errors mentioning R_SPARC_UA32 and > .rela.debug_info during stage 3 I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this won't be easy to do .. but I'll keep hacking at it. Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

_FOR_TARGET,BOOT_CFLAGS}='-m64 -O2' > > No, don't mess with CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET or BOOT_CFLAGS, just type 'make'. I would have to edit that as I use gcc to bootstrap gcc. Hoever, I am very willing to give your method a try. However, my prediction is that Oracle Studio 12.3 will have a fit .. early. Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

/gmp-5.0.5_SunOS5.10_sparcv9-for-gcc-4.7.2/mpn/sparc64/gmp-mparam.h to gmp-mparam.h config.status: executing libtool commands $ ran gmake, runs fine gmake check runs fine also The result however, is that the gcc build dir is polluted with objects from the gmp build. Not what I want most likely. > No, don't mess with CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET or BOOT_CFLAGS, just type 'make'. okay ! Dennis

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> > What isn't clear is where that is run. I decided that I will take your > > approach and try to follow the magic incantations to the very > letter. OKay, > > sort of. I may expand on the CFLAGS just a little bit and I have to > assume, > > in the absence of any data, that I shall run these "c

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

> On 11 November 2012 21:57, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > Here is what I did with gmp : > > > > $ ls $SRC/gmp* > > /usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.bz2 > > > > $ /opt/schily/bin/star -x -bz -xdir -xdot -U -fs=16m > > file=/usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.

gcc 4.2.3 : make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2

I had sent this to the wrong maillist I think. Yet another error. :-\ In any case .. here it is : --- Subject:gcc 4.2.3 : make: *** [bootstrap] Error 2 From: "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue

Re: solaris is a secondary platform for gcc-4.4

sonable. This may not be a surprise to you but people in datacenters with Solaris servers tend to move very slowly and cautiously when it comes to software changes. You will get testsuite reports when people get to it. Not before. The userbase for Solaris 8 upwards is quite well established and very tier-1 level. Not to be ignored. Dennis

A request for md5 hashs to be published

with the md5sum of the uncompressed tar ball and then the average user can confirm that it is correct from the master signature page. Dennis

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

d and then tested with high resolution timers and perhaps we can compare notes. Dennis Clarke

Re: gcc-4.4-20080725 is now available

from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch > with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 138152 Would be nice to have md5 sums there also $ /opt/csw/bin/openssl md5 gcc-4.4-20080725.tar.bz2 MD5(gcc-4.4-20080725.tar.bz2)= 865deaea79c12635f9a9b92937df8d41 etc etc Dennis Clarke

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

VS from several months ago. this page : http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/ says : Current Status The current version is 2.7. See the NEWS file for more information. There is a FAQ which you should read first. also, IMO, the NEWS sections says nothing useful to any human. Dennis

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dennis Clarke wrote: >> >> also, IMO, the NEWS sections says nothing useful to any human. >> > > but, *some* humans like to click on the first (download) link on top. where ? It sa

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dennis Clarke wrote on 28 July 2008 18:54: > >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> Dennis Clarke wrote: >>>> >>>>

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Eus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ho! > > --- On Tue, 7/29/08, "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> hold on .. on the NEWS page I see ... okay .. how very user friendly. >> Sort of the thing one would put

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

rithm, so it is certainly worth the extra complexity. You forgot to look at PowerPC : http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/ppc-dev/ppc-dev/usr/src/lib/libc/ppc/gen/memcpy.s is that nice and small ? Dennis Clarke

Re: FW: Question about MontaVista Licence Management of gcc (Is this legal?)

encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. Dennis Clarke

mkheaders in GCC 4.3.2 seems to break studio.h ?

rke csw 5372 Aug 30 16:57 hello -rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 180 Aug 30 16:53 hello.c -rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 1764 Aug 30 16:56 hello.s -rwxr-xr-x 1 dclarke csw 6424 Aug 30 17:12 hello_gnu -rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 465 Aug 30 17:08 hello_gnu.s -rw-r--r-- 1 dclarke csw 465 Aug 30 17:17 hello_gnu_take2.s Same as before ? $ diff hello_gnu.s hello_gnu_take2.s Identical. :-) So you have to admire the fact that the use of binutils in the path really makes no difference at all. In fact .. not even involved in the process it seems. $ as -o hello_gnu_take2.o -V -Qy -s -xarch=v7 hello_gnu_take2.s GNU assembler version 2.18 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) using BFD version (GNU Binutils) 2.18 $ file hello_gnu_take2.o hello_gnu_take2.o: ELF 32-bit MSB relocatable SPARC Version 1 So I think we have a problem with stdio.h *after* mkheaders and fixincludes gets to it. Not sure what the fix is other than .. don't run mkheaders? Have I screwed up something in the compiler specs ? Any thoughts ? Dennis Clarke

About the "Build status for GCC 4.3" page

available. Sorry for being a nag. -- Dennis Clarke

Re: About the "Build status for GCC 4.3" page

> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:04:05PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> I really do value the build status reports submitted by >> others and I go searching for a few results in particular. >> People like Joe Buck can be relied upon to post good looking >> results for So

Re: About the "Build status for GCC 4.3" page

no longer test those systems. I still have Alpha around .. not sure if this is the sort of thing you want access to for testing. Last time I checked it was a dual proc 4000 series machine with Windows NT on it. Yes .. really. :-P -- Dennis Clarke

Re: About the "Build status for GCC 4.3" page

ity >> to someone else willing to do it. I would be okay with looking at the task .. if I could employ some slightly more modern techniques. I could even host the page with a list of OS platforms and have the thing sorted ( or sortable ) by arch etc. Just me thinking out loud. Dennis Clarke http://wiki.blastwave.org

Re: Bootstrap failure in libstdc++ on i386-pc-solaris2.10

nce_t' > make[4]: *** [mutex.lo] Error 1 What rev of the GCC code are you working with here? You lost me ... I have no issues with GCC 4.3.2. Dennis

Re: Bootstrap failure in libstdc++ on i386-pc-solaris2.10

> > On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 13:44, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> > Hi. >> > >> > My last successful build was from yesterday morning. After the large >> > libstdc++ patch by Chris Fairles landed the builds have failed with >> the >> > following

GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. Anyone know why ?

home/dclarke/local --with-mpfr=/export/home/dclarke/local --enable-bootstrap Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 bash-3.2$ So any thoughts there from anyone ? Dennis

RE: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. Anyone know why ?

> On 26 July 2007 03:09, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> The configure line for GCC 4.2.1 looks like so : >> >> bash-3.2$ /export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/configure >> --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld >> --enable-threads=posix

RE: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor

not certain if setting CFLAGS will enforce this during a bootstrap. any help .. would be great now that I identified the symptoms of the problem. Dennis

Re: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor

> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this >> machine > > This question is appropriate for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > rather than the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list. Pleas

Re: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor

>> what options do I need to set on the configure line in order for this to >> work? > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html , SPARC section. You Sir are magnificent and wonderful ! Thank you so very much. Dennis

Re: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor

> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> At the moment GCC 4.2.1 seems to be tied to the UltraSparc processor and >> thus the older sun4m and 32-bit Sparc machines are being ignored. > > The default cpu is v8plus. You can change that by using the configure > option --with-cpu=v8 or --

Re: GCC 4.2.1 : bootstrap fails at stage 2. compiler produces wrong binary for wrong processor

e_shnum: 21 e_phoff: 0x34 e_phentsize: 32 e_phnum: 5 so .. there you have it. Dennis

GCC 4.2.1 : testsuite says WARNING: program timed out

out. FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c -O3 -g (test for excess errors) WARNING: program timed out. - Dennis Clarke

Re: GCC 4.2.1 : testsuite says WARNING: program timed out

> Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of howlong it >> takes? >> >> I am getting "program timed out" warnings for multiple tests : >> >> Running >> /export/home/dclarke/build/gc

RE: GCC 4.2.1 : testsuite says WARNING: program timed out

> Dennis Clarke wrote: > >>Is there a way to allow the testsuite to just run regardless of >>how long it takes? > > I think you need to pass "set timeout -1" into dejagnu. I'd suggest a larger > positive timeout instead. > > I forget the c

Results for 4.2.1 testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.8

imal approach is * * required in mpfr_sin but that is another topic. Here we use* * the high resolution timers in Solaris to get more fine grained * * measurements. Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]* **/ #include #

Results for 4.2.1 testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.8

imal approach is * * required in mpfr_sin but that is another topic. Here we use* * the high resolution timers in Solaris to get more fine grained * * measurements. Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED]* **/ #include #

When does this page update ?

http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/buildstat.html It seems stuck at 4.2.0 only. If I search around I cna find reports from Joe Buck that seem to help my work but there is nothing linked on the build status page. Dennis Clarke

Re: When does this page update ?

> On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 17:55 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/buildstat.html >> >> It seems stuck at 4.2.0 only. >> >> If I search around I cna find reports from Joe Buck that seem to help my >> work but there is nothing linked on t

Re: Building gcc with a non-gcc compiler (Was: old intentional gcc bug?)

in beer) compiler >> other than gcc, this is harder to test today. Still, not too hard: >> you would just start with some other free compiler. > I generally bootstrap with a Sun Studio compiler on Solaris and then bootstrap again with whatever *that* resulted in. - Dennis Clarke

Re: Downloading GCC

f anything about it. So then .. what OS are you running there ? oh .. also we may need to go to a different mailist. Dennis

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

platform. Am I reading this correctly ? If not .. then please educate me if you can. I would like to at least see GCC 4.2.2 bootstrap out of the box before flailing forwards to GCC 4.3.x. - Dennis Clarke

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

gets thought of. Why would one simply branch towards the next release when the previous one still needs some work? To appease sales people and developers making noises for features? > I don't want to start a flame-fest, but perhaps we could reconsider the > release-branching criteria. I will read intently. Dennis Clarke

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

> On 10/26/07, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Richard Guenther wrote: >> >> > On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >&

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

rts updated ? It *looks* like no one ( me too ) is getting clean builds. Dennis

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

ine with that same environment vars in place but not with GCC 4.2.2. I'll start digging .. again. Dennis

Re: MPFR 2.3.1 Release Candidate

e battary of tests that can be thrown at the code to determine correct responses to various calculations, error conditions, underflows and rounding errors etc etc ? Dennis Clarke

RE: MPFR 2.3.1 Release Candidate

> On 29 December 2007 20:07, Dennis Clarke wrote: > >> >> Do you have a testsuite ? Some battary of tests that can be thrown at the >> code to determine correct responses to various calculations, error >> conditions, underflows and rounding errors etc etc ? > &

[RFC] dotgen: Generate Graphiviz format .dot dump of functions cfg

From: Dennis, CHENG Renquan The GCC has default support of dumping gimple cfg in vcg format, but when I was trying to find a tool to interpret the *.006t.vcg dump file, or to generate a vector image format, it seemed not easy, the vcgviewer [1] not mature as Graphviz, and Graph::Easy [2] is a

Re: [RFC] dotgen: Generate Graphiviz format .dot dump of functions cfg

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Dennis, CHENG Renquan wrote: > From: Dennis, CHENG Renquan > > The GCC has default support of dumping gimple cfg in vcg format, but when I > was trying to find a tool to interpret the *.006t.vcg dump file, or to > generate > a vector image for

Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Kai Ruottu wrote: > This seems to be defined in a header generated during the build > into the $BUILD/gcc : > > [r...@localhost gcc]# grep ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type *.h > gtype-desc.h:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type_u() ((union lang_type_u > *)(ggc_internal_c

Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > I am the author of how these macros are generated, but somehow I have > missed this thread initially. Could you send me off-list that > gtype-desc.h file? The problematic gtype-desc.h has been sent to Laurynas separately, I was compiling

Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > Thanks. I assume that you pass --enable-languages=c to configure? No, just a very simple configure and make command: ../path/to/gcc-4.6-build$ time { ../gcc-4.6-20100911/configure --prefix=/usr --disable-nls --with-system-zlib && make -

Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?

For anyone could succeed compiling gcc-4.6, could you paste a correct ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type macro ? just run this grep command under your build directory, gcc-4.6-build$ grep -RsInw ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type gcc/ gcc/gtype-desc.h:2451:#define ggc_alloc_cleared_lang_type() ((struct lang_ty

Re: [PATCH] Add missing variable_size GTY annotations (was Re: on how to compile gcc-4.6 correctly?)

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > I have reproduced it and the patch below fixes the issue, sorry for > breaking things. Dennis, could you see if it works for you? > > When gcc-core tarball is used without other frontends, gengtype does > not get to see th

gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

gcc does not reduce to call result if called function is not static in -O2 (will do with -O2) clang and msvc does it also in -O2 regardless of the function beeing static or not can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allowed) to reduce this small sample the same way as clang/m

Re: gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

Am 05.12.2020 um 13:04 schrieb Jan Hubicka: > gcc does not reduce to call result if called function is not static in > -O2 (will do with -O2) > clang and msvc does it also in -O2 regardless of the function beeing > static or not > > can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allo

Re: gcc does not reduce the function call to the result if called function is not static when using -O2, only with -O3, clang and msvc do the optimization also with -O2

Am 05.12.2020 um 14:25 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > can someone explain to me why the -O2 optimizer is not able(allowed) to > reduce this small sample the same way as clang/msvc? Change the name of the function to something else than "main". that works, thanks!

Re: [Regarding GCOV].gcda:stamp mismatch with notes file

Am 25.04.2024 um 08:45 schrieb Gejoe Daniel via Gcc: Hi team, The following is my query posted but would need more inputs : https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114751 The gcov tool which was working so far seems to fail with our latest branch where gcc is 11.4.0 and hence we wanted to

why are these std::set iterators of different type when compiling with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

using latest gcc/STL - #include using int_set1 = std::set>; using int_set2 = std::set; static_assert(std::is_same()); - the two iterators are equal when not using _GLIBCXX_DEBUG but become different when using the define?

Re: why are these std::set iterators of different type when compiling with -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG

Am 24.07.2024 um 12:41 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The standard says it's unspecified whether those types are the same, so portable code should not assume they are/aren't the same. I don't know for sure, but I assume somebody thought that making them different was helpful to avoid non-portable code.

c99 does not handle -O2 but cc does?

latest SUSE Tumbleweed/gcc 14.2 c99 -O2 test.c returns: c99: invalid option -- '2' cc -O2 test.c returns successfull according to https://linux.die.net/man/1/c99 the -O2 option should work c99 is used in an older build system and that didn't work due to the -O2 problem

Re: c99 does not handle -O2 but cc does?

Am 11.10.2024 um 18:07 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: The c99 executable is provided by your distro, it's not part of GCC. Maybe it wants a space between the -O and 2, but I don't know. thanks for clearing that up does not work with spaces - will ask on the Tumbleweed list

Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

im currently trying to replicate a gcc-3.4.0 arm-elf build from an very old cross toolchain building with my script (https://pastebin.com/kAEK0S24) works but my -print-multi-lib returns only --- .; thumb;@mthumb --- the original builds -print-multi-lib returns --- .; thumb;@mthumb be;@mbig-endi

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

content of my gcc-3.4.0\gcc\config\arm\t-arm-elf https://pastebin.com/CivYHhRa Am 27.09.2024 um 09:23 schrieb Dennis Luehring via Gcc: im currently trying to replicate a gcc-3.4.0 arm-elf build from an very old cross toolchain building with my script (https://pastebin.com/kAEK0S24) works but

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: They might not have been using the original gcc-3.4.0 sources. seems to be very possible There should be no need to edit those files, but that doesn't mean that the people who built your old toolchain didn't edit them. the other way would

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 13:00 schrieb Richard Earnshaw (lists): > It was very common at that time for suppliers to use slightly modified gcc sources for microcontrollers (especially ARM, but also for other targets).  Typically manufacturers and some major third-party gcc builders were ahead of mainli

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 09:56 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Fri, 27 Sept 2024, 08:39 Dennis Luehring, wrote: > Am 27.09.2024 um 09:34 schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > > > > They might not have > > been using the original gcc-3.4.0 sources. > > > seems to be very possible > &

Re: Is there a need to sometimes change gcc/config/t-* files when building a cross compiler?

Am 27.09.2024 um 11:03 schrieb David Brown: So there is a very real chance that the sources you have are not original. You could download the archived release from the gcc website and compare the sources to get some idea if they have changed. i do not have original source - only binaries, i ho

Re: Question about GCC license for commercial use

Am 16.07.2025 um 17:37 schrieb Eli Zaretskii via Gcc: Unless the Windows loader can find them on the end-user's machine, it will refuse to run the program. the initial question was: do they fall under GPL when just using gcc - how complex or error prone their distribution concepts get is of no

<    1   2   3   >