Re: How can a front-end know what integer mode corresponds to int_fastN_t?

FX Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > For Fortran 2003 standard conformance, the Fortran front-end has to > know at compile-time what integer mode corresponds to some C99 types, > like intmax_t, intN_t, int_leastN_t, int_fastN_t. > > For intN_t and int_leastN_t, I can see how to g

Re: Proposed semantics for attributes in C++ (and in C?)

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > We have a number of C++ PRs open around problems with code like this: > >struct S { > void f(); > virtual void g(); >}; > >typedef __attribute__((...)) struct S T; > > If the attribute makes any substantive change to S (e.g., cha

Re: r117741

On 17/10/2006, at 11:45 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, I noticed that the automake maintainers accepted your patch for fixing the multilib issues in automake. However they also seemed to indicate that there would be no more 1.9.x automake releases. Is the r117741 svn checkin related to th

Re: r117741

On 17/10/2006, at 1:39 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On 17/10/2006, at 11:45 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, I noticed that the automake maintainers accepted your patch for fixing the multilib issues in automake. However they also seemed to indicate that there would be no more 1.9.x automake rel

Re: r117741

On 17/10/2006, at 3:27 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, Should gcc/doc/install.texi be changed now to require automake version 1.10 or later rather than the current 1.9.3? No. Jack On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:36:21PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: Hi Jack, I believe

Re: GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMA for C++ is another difficult case. This is unambiguously useful, > though duplicative of what we're trying to build with LTO. Although there are some things you can do with LTO that you can also do with IMA, there are many things that you can do wi

C++ name mangling for local entities

that 'v' is available for 'vendor extended operator', but unfortunately it's set up to be used only for an operator, not an arbitrary symbol. -- - Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: C++ name mangling for local entities

On 19/10/2006, at 3:04 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Keating) writes: For GCC, I've found it necessary to have a way to name local (that is, namespace-scope 'static') variables and functions which allows more than one such symbol to be present an

Re: C++ name mangling for local entities

On 19/10/2006, at 9:17 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: For GCC, I've found it necessary to have a way to name local (that is, namespace-scope 'static') variables and functions which allows more than one such symbol to be present and have distinct mangled n

build failure, GMP not available

Hi Kaveh, Since your patch r117933 | ghazi | 2006-10-21 06:58:13 -0700 (Sat, 21 Oct 2006) | 16 lines * configure.in: Require GMP-4.1+ and MPFR-2.2+. Don't check need_gmp anymore. I'm getting configure

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: 4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix planned for GMP 4.x. and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on my MacBook Pro? Errr, well, I have installe

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 1:24 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: Also, although I experience no regressions, i'll point out that there is no automated tested for macintel darwin that posts to gcc-testresults, which does not bode well for something you

Re: build failure, GMP not available

One more thing, I initially went down the road of including the GMP/ MPFR sources in the gcc tree and building them as part of the bootstrap process. But the consensus was not to do that: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00167.html I think the problem is that Mark also said I do think we

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 5:31 PM, Shantonu Sen wrote: For what it's worth, I did a build on Mac OS X for Intel 10.4.8 last week, and had no problems building GMP 4.2.1 and mprf-2.2.0, with no special --target options. Maybe you have an old version of gmp in your default linker search path causing

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 31/10/2006, at 12:28 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I would strongly oppose downloading stuff during the build process. We're not in the apt-get business; we can leave that to the GNU/Linux distributions, the Cygwin distributors, e

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as > > "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for > > GCC, you can do it for a library it uses too. > > Just another data point.

starting a merge of many little patches

I'm about to start merging into the trunk a bunch of small patches, all of which have been previously posted to gcc-patches with a notation like 'on hold for 4.3'. I plan to do it as a sequence of commits; I will send out a final message to gcc-patches listing the ChangeLog entries of the

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 31/10/2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: OK, I agree: a native compiler, with no special options, isn't too hard. I don't think typing that sequence twice would be too hard either, though. :-) For something that's not too hard, it's sure

Re: building gcc4-4.3.0-20061104/11 failure on OSX 10.3

On 14/11/2006, at 3:13 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2006-11/msg00058.html I reported the following: Building snapshot gcc4-4.3.0-20061104 on OSX 10.3.9 with odcctools 590-20060413 using a modified Fink script (working with the previous snapshot) failed with

Re: Who should fix platforms broken by extern inline hack?

Both regressions were introduced by Geoffrey Keating (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg3.html) in a "C99 extern inline" patch. Fixincludes were then created for glibc systems. In both cases, I'm ready to debug (I attached the full preprocessed source of minima

Re: Who should fix platforms broken by extern inline hack?

On 04/03/2007, at 12:25 AM, FX Coudert wrote: I'd like to ping these two problems :) i386-unknown-netbsdelf2.0.2 (and possibly newer versions) and i386- pc-mingw32 (latest released version) are still completely broken on mainline, as they have been for more that three months. I spent some

Re: gengtype future directions

On 26/03/2007, at 3:12 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: Most of gengtype's hardwired kludges exist because it does not do preprocessing, and therefore my recommendation is that we work toward a state where gengtype can use libcpp to do that (we already have a preprocessor library, let's use it :) If l

Re: libstdc++.dylib linking problem on Darwin

I would recommend using the system libstdc++ and system libgcc_s rather than one you build yourself from FSF sources, unless you're actually developing libstdc++. The FSF libstdc++ is, I believe, binary incompatible with the system one, and since system libraries use the system one there is no way

Re: DR#314 update

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Proposed amendment for C1x: > > 6.2.7 after paragraph 2 insert: There shall exist a partition of > all the structure and union types in the program into disjoint > classes such that (a) if two types are in the same class, then > they

Re: DR#314 update

On 27/04/2007, at 2:50 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 26 Apr 2007, Geoffrey Keating wrote: This seems reasonable to me, but maybe it would be simpler to write If there are one or more incomplete structure or union types which cannot all be completed without producing undefined behaviour

Re: Implicit altivec vs. linux kernel build

Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unless -mcpu=POWER8 -mno-altivec -maltivec is legal ... Yes, a later -msomething will override a previous -mno-something.

Re: Question about GTY machinery (cgraph_edge)

Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi! > > struct cgraph_edge is currently member of two lists, i.e. > it contains two "next" pointers, but is annotated like > > struct cgraph_edge GTY((chain_next ("%h.next_caller"))) > { > struct cgraph_node *caller; > struct cgraph_node *callee

Re: invoke.texi: reference to web page that does not exist

Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > invoke.texi mentions following URL for further info on visibility > #pragmas. >http://www.nedprod.com/programs/gccvisibility.html > but it does not exist. Guess you should take it out, then.

Re: Libstdc++-v3 vs darwin vs weak support

Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > in March 2004 we added to many libstdc++-v3 testcases lines similar to > > #if !__GXX_WEAK__ && _MT_ALLOCATOR_H > // Explicitly instantiate for systems with no COMDAT or weak support. > template class __gnu_cxx::__mt_alloc >; > #endif > > AFAI

Re: PCH versus --enable-mapped-location

Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Geoff Keating wrote: > >> * Any source_location values handed out before the #include > >> that restores the gch will become invalid. They will be re-mapped > >> to that in the pre-compiled header. Presumably that's ok - there's > >> no declartions or

Re: PCH versus --enable-mapped-location

Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > That's exactly what Geoff said. There are two relevant properties of > > GCed memory here: > > - Anything in GCed memory will be saved to the PCH > > - Anything in GCed memory will be overwritten by loading the PCH. > >

call for testers!

I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I presume this means that lots of people have tri

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 3:36 PM, Joe Buck wrote: On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 02:48:02PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg00145.

Re: call for testers!

On 04/04/2005, at 4:31 PM, John David Anglin wrote: I'd really appreciate it if people on unusual host systems (AIX, HPPA, cygwin, etc.) could see what the effect of the patch in is on their bootstrap. I've gotten no responses at all, and I

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available ... > Then, if you are running on a primary or secondary platform, please > send me an email pointing me at the results you've posted, and > highlighting any failures to meet the release criteria. Hi Mark, I'm p

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ranjit Mathew writes: > > Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > [...] > > > which I see you've already committed a patch for, and a large number > > > of Java failures. > > > > > > Yo

Re: Heads-up: volatile and C++

Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:12:37 -0400, "Michael N. Moran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Jason Merrill wrote: > >> The C++ committee (well, a subgroup represented at this meeting by Hans > >> Boehm) is working on a memory model that supports threaded

Re: Processor-specific code

Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Dave" == Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dave> Original Message > >> From: Paul Koning Sent: 15 April 2005 17:56 > > >>> "Dave" == Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > Dave> Doesn't the C language spec require th

Re: Processor-specific code

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 10:47:26AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > Does gcc support > > > #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS > > > > No, but we currently act like access is "on". > > I thought we acted li

sync operations: where's the barrier?

Hi Richard, The documentation for the atomic operation patterns says things like: This pattern must issue any memory barrier instructions such that the pattern as a whole acts as a full barrier. Should the barrier happen before the operation, after the operation, are there two barriers, or is it u

Re: Can I comment out a GTY variable?

"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I am trying to comment out > > static GTY (()) int foo = 0; > > with > > #if 0 > static GTY (()) int foo = 0; > #endif > > But I got an error saying something like > > ./gth:44: error: foo undeclared here (not in a function) > > Is that expected?

Re: GCC 4.0 RC2 Available

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > RC2 is available here: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/ > > As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits > on primary and secondary platforms, post test results with the > contrib/test_summary script,

Re: sync operations: where's the barrier?

On 18/04/2005, at 6:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: Geoffrey Keating writes: Geoff> The documentation for the atomic operation patterns says things like: This pattern must issue any memory barrier instructions such that the pattern as a whole acts as a full barrier. Geoff> Should the barrier

Re: EABI stack alignment for ppc

Olivier Hainque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > > PPC EABI targets are currently configured with both BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT and > PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY set to 128, I believe to accomodate > > "a long double member within a structure or union shall start at the lowest >available offse

Re: [RFA] Invalid mmap(2) assumption in pch (ggc-common.c)

Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Running the libstdc++ testsuite on NetBSD/sparc or NetBSD/sparc64 > results in most tests failing like: > > :1: fatal error: had to relocate PCH > compilation terminated. > compiler exited with status 1 > > This is due to a misassumption in ggc-common.c:

Re: volatile semantics

Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Still, never mind what the C spec appears to say, optimizing away the > cast cannot possibly what the user intended. The user might have written a routine which takes a 'volatile int *', with the intent that routine would be used on both regular and volat

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that part > of the problem is that the documentation for > -funsafe-math-optimizations is so vague as to have no discernable > meaning. > > For example, does the wording of the documentation co

Re: Lowering of types?

Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6/2/05, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers > > > we run into type mismatches like > > > > This isn'

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-05)

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > > >> > >> On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> > >>> Here are three bugs I'd really like to see fixed. > >>> > >>> * 21528: SRA and/or aliasing problem. > >>>

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > To support different expectations, I suggest defining the following > floating-point options for GCC. This is a conceptual overview; once > there's a consensus the categories, I'll propose something more formal. > > -ffp-correct > > This option foc

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > > So, what I think you want to do is to add another flag under > > -ffast-math, perhaps called -fwiden-math, which specifically allows > > the compiler to co

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC2

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GCC 4.0.1 RC2 is now available here: > >ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050616 > > This version has the libstdc++ versioning changes, and most of the PO > file updates. The PO file that Joseph checked in today is not > included, but w

Re: CFT: toplevel bootstrap (stage 2 project)

I haven't actually tried it, but it looks like the 'compare' rule tries to compare every .o file in all the directories, which will surely cause the same problems with stabs and assembly that is described in: and other related messages.

Re: dead label use?

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Forgive me ignorance, is there is use for the use of the label below? > > > > From rs6000, though, certainly there are other examples of this sort > > of thing in the md files: > > > > (define_insn "" > >[(set (pc) >

Re:

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bryce McKinlay wrote: > > > Mark, > > > Could we get an exemption from the freeze rules for low-risk, > > runtime only libgcj fixes as determined by the libgcj maintainers? > > I don't think we want to do that. > > First, we're close to a release. W

Re: [C++] Re: PARM_DECL of DECL_SIZE 0, but TYPE_SIZE of 96 bits

Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:17:07PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > 1. In require_complete_types_for_parms, in the C++ FE, reset DECL_SIZE > > to NULL before we call layout_decl on the parm and let layout_decl > > figure out what to do. > > This is w

Re: updating libtool, etc.

On 01/07/2005, at 7:43 AM, Kelley Cook wrote: Does anyone mind if I update libtool to the latest released version, 1.5.18, and regenerate everything with automake 1.9.5? Sounds great if you can get it to work. I actually have this completely working for the GCC part of the tree, I thi

move specs documentation to internals manual?

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoffrey Keating) writes: > > > > > * gcc.c: Include xregex.h. > > > (version_compare_spec_function

Re: Pointers in comparison expressions

Mirco Lorenzoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Can a pointer appear in a C/C++ relational expression which doesn't test the > equality (or the inequality) of that pointer with respect to another pointer? Yes. > For example, are the comparisons in the following program legal code? No. > /* test

Re: volatile semantics

"D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 6.3.2.1: when an object is said to have a particular type, the type is > specified by the lvalue used to designate the object. So the lvalue > having a volatile-qualified type *means* that the object it designates has > a volatile-qualified type

Re: volatile semantics

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > In other words, we're asked to agree that the type of an object > > > changes depending on how it is accessed. > > > For the benefit of readers, only the first sentence of this para is > > > the language of the standard

Re: could gfortran be tested on Darwin regress builds of 4.1?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Howarth) writes: > Since gfortran is making such good progress at this point, it > would seem like a really good idea for Apple to add the gfortran build > to its builds on regress. It would make is easier for Mac users to > tell what the expected status is of gfortran

Re: Minimum/maximum operators are deprecated?

"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It was an ill-defined and poorly maintained language extension that > > was broken in many cases. > That's an overstatement. I've been using it for years without any > problem, and was very deprived by

Re: checksum files not ^C safe

On 14/09/2005, at 5:32 PM, Mike Stump wrote: These types of rules are not ^C safe: cc1-checksum.c : cc1-dummy$(exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) cc1-dummy$(exeext) > $@ It is a general property that builds are ^C safe, the above changes retard

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? The GCC docs > here (http://tinyurl.com/99wc8) suggest that it is a subset of ELF > platforms. Is that correct? I think I can give you an answer which is completely correct and yet completely

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Paul, > I proposed to insert the following paragraph after XCU page 213 line > 8366 (i.e, at the end of the INPUT FILES section of the c99 spec > ): > >It is implementation-defined wh

Re: RFC: dbxout_type rewrite

Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've now patch ready (based on apple-local-200502-branch) but it > requires few bug fixes in darwin GDB. My simple question is : Is > anybody interested in reviewing this GCC patch for acceptance in FSF > GCC (4.1 or 4.2 or whenever) irrespective of wheth

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > > Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If you tell us what the real question is, maybe we can answer that one. > > To me, that sounds like an insult: why

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks, everybody, for writing about this. > > The standardization process is one of consensus, and if the GCC > developers find some areas of disagreement here I think it unlikely > that the other POSIX implementers will agree with the proposed action. >

Re: Whats the real penalty of non-mmap ggc?

Kean Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > > After days spent trying to get a clean gmake check run, I am down to > the last few failures. They are all related to the PCH tests, and they > all > fail the same way: "largefile.c:1: fatal error: had to relocate PCH". > Previously, *all* P

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes: > >The POSIXy way to do that would be to refer to the LC_CHARSET > >environment variable, but then consider > > > >LC_CHARSET=UTF-16 c99 foo.c > > > >where 'foo.c' is in UTF-16 and contains '#include ', > > Not really a problem for a number of reasons. Firs

new cctools, 590.12 for Darwin

I've uploaded cctools-590.12 to and the source for it as Their md5 checksums are: 410dd3c1471d31e24a193c674432a7f5 cctools-590.12.tar.bz2 0043796eff1b3187f5e7b4db6e

weakref and static

ught that it implied that in fact ELF did have this capability. What do people think? Obviously this should be settled before 4.1 ships... -- - Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ===File ~/patches/gcc-weakrefstatic-0.patch= Index: gcc/ChangeLog 2005-12-01 Geoffrey Ke

Re: weakref and static

On 17/12/2005, at 10:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: But there are dozens of other uses of TREE_PUBLIC in the backends, so it wouldn't surprise me if something similar is not present on other arches. Normal aliases are usually declared through extern __typeof (foo) bar __attribute__((alias ("fo

Re: On the toplevel configure and build system

"Joseph S. Myers" writes: > 2. If you put directories from the GCC repository into your build, you > should expect GCC and its libraries to be built; toplevel should not > disable GCC on the grounds that GCC does not support a given target. I'd appreciate it if creating a combined tree and b

Re: Traversing typedef hierarchy in C/C++ tree

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Boris Kolpackov writes: > > > I was also thinking if adding an extra member would be a big deal, > > memory usage-wise. This member is only going to be added to the > > TYPE nodes (struct tree_type). I may be wrong, but I would expect > > that there aren't that many s

Re: __Unwind_GetIPInfo on Darwin 8.11

Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 11:59:03AM +, IainS wrote: > > Hello Jack, > > On 21 Nov 2008, at 18:35, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 03:57:15PM +, IainS wrote: > >>> When 'make checking', I conventionally move the built libgcc_s.

Re: [HELP] GCC 4.1 branch Ada status on powerpc-darwin?

On 23/01/2006, at 6:23 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Attached is a patch to the 4.1 branch, I think it will apply to mainline too. Branch built fine on powerpc-apple-darwin8.4.0 with c,ada enabled. That's not sufficient: the compiler bootstraps fine, but all the ACATS tests fail to link:

Re: [HELP] GCC 4.1 branch Ada status on powerpc-darwin?

On 23/01/2006, at 1:51 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: As I said before in this thread, the Ada driver should do what the C++ driver does, which is to pass -shared-libgcc if it's going to need EH support. Or, you could pass -fexceptions to the link, which has the same effect. That's not really a

Re: Calls to malloc during an exception

This is The difficulty is thread-safety. If we had some reliable way of allocating memory whenever a new thread was created on platforms that don't have TLS, it would be easy to fix.

Re: Attribute data structure rewrite?

On 25/01/2006, at 4:09 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: Hi Geoff, re this mail: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-09/msg01357.html do you still have the code around? Are you still willing to contribute it? Maybe you could upload it to a branch just to have it around in case someone is willing to up

Re: Attribute data structure rewrite?

On 25/01/2006, at 11:52 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: svn log --stop-on-copy svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/stree-branch I got my branches confused; it's on static-tree-branch. Revision 88377. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Enable IBM long double for PPC32 Linux

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > However, the PowerPC GNU/Linux community seems to want this feature very > badly, and has suggested that failure to incorporate these patches in > GCC 4.1 would be very bad. My feeling is that it is the PowerPC > community which will be harmed if they g

new cctools, 590.36 for Darwin

I've uploaded cctools-590.36 to and the source for it as Their md5 checksums are: MD5 (cctools-590.36.dmg) = 36232fb9525ef5101ed9089db7083d4d MD5 (cctools-590.36.tar

Re: Darwin long doubles and controlled rounding

Roberto Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi there, > > I have read the files darwin-ldouble* in GCC 4.1.0. > What I would like do know is whether I can expect > long doubles on Darwin to comply with ISO C99 7.6 > (Floating-point environment). They can be made compliant with that section, b

Re: 4.2 hasn't bootstrapped on powerpc-apple-darwin G5 machine for a very long time

On 09/05/2006, at 12:37 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote: On May 3, 2006, at 7:50 PM, David Fang wrote: FWIW, the 20060415 mainline (4.2) snapshot bootstrapped for me, using odcctools-20060413 (odcctools-590.36od13). This machine is a dual G5 (ppc970) using OS X 10.3.9, and Apple's gcc-3.3 (build 1

Re: c++ regression in trunk

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Howarth) writes: > Mike, >Actually the problem appears unrelated to cxa_atexit as neither > -fuse-cxa-atexit nor -fno-use-cxa-atexit eliminates the problem > with the throw aborting the program. >I do believe I have found a work-around to the problem which > identi

Re: c++ regression in trunk

On 31/05/2006, at 4:59 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, Nice call. If I relink xplor with 'gcc -shared-libgcc', the program no longer aborts on the throw in the c++ code. As before, if I remove the '-shared-libgcc' and link with gcc, I get the abort on the throw. Anything else can provide

Re: c++ regression in trunk

On 31/05/2006, at 6:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: If I take the link line generated for -shared-libgcc and substitute the the static libgcc, the resulting xplor binary doesn't abort on the throw. Also if I take the link line generated without -shared-libgcc and add "-lgcc_s.10.4", the resultin

Re: which cctool on Darwin?

On 05/06/2006, at 1:44 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: I noticed that Xcode 2.3 seems to have a cctools with a higher version that that in the infrastructure directory at the gcc ftp site. Should we be using the Xcode 2.3 version instead of that 20060413 copy for building gcc trunk? Yes. smime

Re: which cctool on Darwin?

On 05/06/2006, at 2:58 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, Would the ld64 in the cctools of Xcode 2.3 happen to resolve PR 27121? Jack 27121 was originally reported as a bug which can only be resolved by cctools, not ld64 which is not part of cctools. I see there was some additi

Re: which cctool on Darwin?

On 05/06/2006, at 6:09 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, Could you update the cctools (particularly the source version) in infrastructure to the newer version? I see no reason to do this. You can get the last released version of cctools at

Re: which cctool on Darwin?

On 05/06/2006, at 6:55 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, Okay. I downloaded the cctools-590.42.1.tar.gz and attempted to build it using the same fink packaging script used for odcctools. However I get a build failure of... cc -O -g -I../../include -Wall -Wno-long-double -no-cpp-precomp -

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Tromey wrote: > >> "Devang" == Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Devang> This version removes internal radar numbers and replaces s/ > > Devang> DW_AT_APPLE.../DW_AT_GNU... > > > > I read this. I'm not anywhere near an expert in

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

On 06/06/2006, at 4:58 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Tromey wrote: "Devang" == Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Devang> This version removes internal radar numbers and replaces s/ Devang&

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

On 06/06/2006, at 5:11 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: On 06/06/2006, at 4:58 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Tromey wrote: "Devang" == Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Devang

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

On 06/06/2006, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: Right above, you said "We control the debug output machinery generating this, and can simply tell it to only deal in one language." Here, you seem to be implying that the messages should be localised in the language the compiler is going to outpu

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

On 06/06/2006, at 5:25 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On 06/06/2006, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: Right above, you said "We control the debug output machinery generating this, and can simply tell it to only deal in one language." Here, you seem to be implying that the messages should be loc

Re: [RFC] Optimization Diary

On 07/06/2006, at 11:33 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:29:44AM -0700, Devang Patel wrote: And string does not answer localization issue, however for numbers at least there is one precedent to follow. I think this discussion has gotten totally sidetracked. When I s

Re: PR 26792

On 08/06/2006, at 7:48 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, I noticed PR 26792 last night. After reading that it became clear what was causing the massive c++ regressions when I built gcc trunk under fink. Fink sets MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to 10.4 when a package is built in fink 10.4 branch

  1   2   >