Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/20 9:56 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
Or, if that is not possible, disable gcc-cvs mail for vendor and private
branches altogether?
>>
>> I think this is desirable
Joel Brobecker wrote:
I think it's desirable for development that *happens on* the personal and
vendor branches to be visible in gcc-cvs - that is different from things
getting merged into them.
Likewise for the refs/heads/devel/* development branches -
non-fast-forward pushes are not permitte
Joel Brobecker wrote:
AFAIU, we have access to more fine-grained information; isn’t it
possible
to differentiate “new” commits, from ‘merges’ and from ‘rebases’?
(because a ‘new’ commit does not have the extra fields set up for merges
and rebases).
In my opinion, this would create a lot of
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 8.4 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.4.0-RC-20200226/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.4.0-RC-20200226/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
r8-10091-gf80c40f93f9e8781b14f1a830146
General notes:
* GCC on Darwin depends on the installed “binutils”, typically provided by a
version of “Xcode" or “Xcode command line tools”. Unless noted otherwise, the
bootstrap sequences here make use of the last available xcode command line
tools and SDK for the platform version.
* Two bo
General notes:
* GCC on Darwin depends on the installed “binutils”, typically provided by a
version of “Xcode" or “Xcode command line tools”. Unless noted otherwise, the
bootstrap sequences here make use of the last available xcode command line
tools and SDK for the platform version.
* Apple
unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc wrote:
I think this would be great to support LLVM’s libc++ by be compatible
with -stdlib=libc++ on clang.
I have a patch for this, for next stage 1.
(we are in stage 4 now, so not the right time for new features).
thanks
Iain
Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
now I remember, it was PR82856 which prompted this
change (and I put in the wrong version number :-)
Looking back at that PR, the uppper level of Perl as reqirement can
probably be lifted.
I would still prefer a test with --enable-maintainer-mode, to test
that the
Hi
g++.dg/abi/guard3.C
has:
extern "C" int __cxa_guard_acquire();
Which might not be a suitable declaration, depending on how the ‘extern
“C”’ is supposed to affect the function signature generated.
IF, the extern C should make this parse as a “K&R” style function - then
the TYPE_ARG_TYP
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 16:23, Iain Sandoe wrote:
g++.dg/abi/guard3.C
has:
extern "C" int __cxa_guard_acquire();
Which might not be a suitable declaration, depending on how the ‘extern
“C”’ is supposed to affect the function signature generated
that is confusing things?
maybe that’s the underlying reason for failing to diagnose the wrong code.
On 9/6/20 4:43 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 16:23, Iain Sandoe wrote:
g++.dg/abi/guard3.C
has:
extern "C" int __cxa_guard_acquir
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 at 09:18, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Perhaps the PR should be reopened with “accepts invalid”?
My impression from the PR is that the reporter was using a different
ABI, where the name isn't reserved. Maybe the testcase should only be
accepted
Hi Uros,
I was looking into the test fails for the new keylocker-* testcases.
Many are because of missing “_” (which seems to happen more often than
not). These I can fix trivially.
But some are because we have:
name+constant(%rip) being emitted on Linux
and
constant+name(%rip) being emi
Hi,
Hongyu Wang via Gcc wrote:
Maybe those scan-asm regexp are too strict and should be relaxed a
bit.
I agree with this, since with -fPIC the code produced would be different,
just use symbol + constant may be too strict.
I think the scan-assembler could be reduced to
/* { dg-final { scan-
Hi.
Hongyu Wang wrote:
3. are you intending to update the tests?
Yes, so could you tell me what does missing “_” means? I have some
trouble building darwin target for now.
Darwin uses a USER_LABEL_PREFIX of ‘_’ (there are a small number of targets
that do this).
So public symbols begin wi
Hi,
Hongyu Wang via Gcc wrote:
I've adjust the testcase and now it only contains constant offset, since
with -fPIC the mov target address does not contain any symbol in the
assembler.
Could you help to check the attached changes on darwin and see if they
all get passed?
LGTM.
OK from a
FX via Gcc wrote:
but later I am getting further errors:
../../gcc/gcc/config/darwin.c:1357:16: error: no viable conversion from
'poly_uint16' (aka 'poly_int<2, unsigned short>') to 'unsigned int'
unsigned int modesize = GET_MODE_BITSIZE (mode);
^ ~
FX,
Martin Liška wrote:
On 12/23/20 11:49 AM, FX via Gcc wrote:
Hi all,
The gcc 10.2 release was 5 months ago today. A lot has happened in the
gcc-10 branch since, in particular on aarch64. Could a new release be
issued? It would make efforts at maintaining patches on top of the
gcc-10
unlvsur unlvsur wrote:
<3E6B1CF4201340D8BCCB373AE127FCC7.png>
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
The -stdlib= option is an “enabling” change;
As things stand, the packaging of the libc++ headers (and libc++ itself)
needs intervention by the distribution (e.g. to add a coroutine header or
to
FX wrote:
When are you going to apply your fix that Richard S. approved on the
21st?
When I remember how to set up gcc’s git with write access, and remember
how the new ChangeLog entries work. The times where I was a regular
contributor were the CVS and SVN times.
I also wanted to ask a
FX wrote:
If Richard approves the second patch (and you’re stuck for time) - then
send me the patch(es) as attachments with the commit credits you want,
and I can apply them for you.
Both patches only needed on gcc-10, if you can commit that’s great, many
thanks.
bootstrapped / smoke t
Richard Biener wrote:
The GNU Compiler Collection version 10.3 has been released.
I believe that this is the best release for Darwin in some time, it includes
a) The first released version to support Darwin20 (macOS 11)
b) Fixes for some long-standing serious bugs affecting older OS versions
Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Paul Koning via Gcc :
On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
wrote:
So we don't get the choice between "everyone is welcome" and "some
people are kicked off the list." We get the choice between "some
people decline to participate because it is unpleasa
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of the thread.
* The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so
years I’ve been part of the community.
* We would notice if it became so, I’m not sure about the
Christopher Dimech wrote:
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 at 7:21 AM
From: "Iain Sandoe"
To: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: removing toxic emailers
Paul Koning wrote:
On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
...
responding in general to this part of th
Hi Aldy,
On 7 Jun 2015, at 12:37, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 06/07/2015 06:19 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Another fallout:
>>
>> FAIL: obj-c++.dg/try-catch-5.mm -fgnu-runtime (test for excess errors)
>> Excess errors:
>> : warning: '_OBJC_Module' defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
>
> ch
Hi Rainer,
On 4 Dec 2014, at 13:32, Rainer Orth wrote:
> FX writes:
>
>> 10-days ping
>> This restores bootstrap on a secondary target, target maintainer is OK with
>> it. I think I need build maintainers approval, so please review.
>
> While in my testing, 64-bit Mac OS X 10.10.1 (x86_64-appl
On 4 Dec 2014, at 15:24, FX wrote:
>> Can you try adding it as
>>
>> T_CFLAGS += -mdynamic-no-pic
>>
>> in gcc/config/t-tarwin instead?
>
-mdynamic-no-pic should be used to build *host* executable stuff for m32 darwin.
It is not suitable for building shared libraries (hence the problem with
Hi Jeff,
On 5 Dec 2014, at 22:40, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/05/14 15:34, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>> As I've tried to explain, that is IMHO wrong though.
>>> If what you are after is the -B stuff too, then perhaps:
>>> ...
>>
>> Sorry but it does not work:
> BTW, thanks for working with Jakub o
Hi FX,
On 15 Dec 2014, at 21:11, FX wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I’ve set up daily builds and regtests on a darwin box. The results should
> appear directly on gcc-testresults
> (https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/current/).
> This should, in the future, help track down regressions affecting darwi
On 16 Dec 2014, at 19:38, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> Looking at your results for gcc 5.0, I see a lot of gcc.dg/ubsan/* failures I
> don’t see in my tests. Any idea why?
I think that there will be ubsan fails until the library is installed (which
implies that the testing is not setting the
On 16 Dec 2014, at 20:40, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
>> Another testsuite issue on darwin is that testsuite doesn’t clean up the
>> .dSYM directories it generates. This gets really annoying on my autotester :(
>
> I have a patch for that, but Iain does not like it!-(
Hmm .. I like the patc
Hello Jeff,
> I'm pleased to announce that Iain Sandoe has been appointed as a maintainer
> for the Objective-C and Objective-C++ front-ends.
Thanks!
Let's hope there's time to fit some modernisation in the next stage #1.
Iain
> Iain, please add yourself as a maintainer
On 26 Jan 2015, at 14:13, Rainer Orth wrote:
> FX writes:
>
>>> The default BOOT_CFLAGS are: -O2 -g -mdynamic-no-pic
>>> the libiberty pic build appends: -fno-common (and not even -fPIC) [NB
>>> -fPIC _won't_ override -mdynamic-no-pic, so that's not a simple way out]
>>> This means that the PIC
Hi,
For a processor that supports SSE, but not AVX.
the following code:
typedef int __attribute__((mode(QI))) qi;
typedef qi __attribute__((vector_size (32))) v32qi;
v32qi foo (int x)
{
v32qi y = {'0','1','2','3','4','5','6','7','8','9','a','b','c','d','e','f',
'0','1','2','3','4','
> On 30 Oct 2018, at 13:26, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> In Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:28 AM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>
> Please open a bug to keep track.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87812
> On 22 Nov 2018, at 09:30, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 7 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
>
> I plan to do a GCC 7.4 release in a few weeks starting with a
> first release candidate at the end of next week, likely Nov. 29th.
>
> Please go t
> On 29 Nov 2018, at 22:53, Bill Seurer wrote:
>
> On 11/29/18 04:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> A release candidate for GCC 7.4 is available from
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7.4.0-RC-20181129/
>> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 266611.
>> I have so fa
> On 14 Jan 2019, at 13:53, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> "MCC CS" writes:
>
>> I've been running the testsuite on my macOS, on which
>> it is especially unbearable. I want to (at least try to)
>
> that problem may well be macOS specific: since at least macOS 10.13
> (maybe even 10.12; cannot curre
Hey Rainer,
> On 15 Jan 2019, at 17:27, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> On 14 Jan 2019, at 13:53, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>>
>>> "MCC CS" writes:
>>>
I've been running the testsuite on my macOS, on which
it is especially unbearable. I want to (at least try to)
>>>
>>> that problem may well be
> On 28 Jan 2019, at 15:58, Bernhard Schommer
> wrote:
>
> I would like to know if the handling of the option -fno-common has
> changed between version 7.3 and 8.2 for x86. I tried it with the
> default system version of OpenSUSE and for example:
>
> const int i;
>
> is placed in the .bss se
Hi David,
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 20:28, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
> appointed Iain Sandoe as Darwin co-maintainer.
thanks to the SC and folks who’ve commented in public and private!
> Iain, please update your
Hi Jakub,
> On 30 Apr 2019, at 14:12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> The second release candidate for GCC 9.1 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.0.1-RC-20190430/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.0.1-RC-20190430
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated fro
> On 4 May 2019, at 03:41, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> looking at the changes for configuration in gcc 9.1, I noticed:
>
> 1) New configure options
>
> OTOOL/OTOOL_FOR_TARGET: Which I assume from google is the Darwin ldd
> replacement
It’s actually the Darwin equivalent for many of the faciliti
> On 6 May 2019, at 09:02, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 02:41:41PM +0200, FX wrote:
>> Hi gcc and gfortran developers,
>>
>> While testing GCC 9.1.0 before shipping it as part of Homebrew for macOS,
>> we’re seeing the following OpenMP-based failure when recompiling severa
Right now, we don’t install a “cc” [we install gcc] but we do install “c++” [
we also install g++, of course].
Some configure scripts (and one or two places in the testsuite) do try to
invoke ‘cc’ which can lead to inconsistent tools being used, if a GCC install
is ahead in the PATH of some o
> On 13 May 2019, at 17:33, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Sun, 12 May 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>> "cc" isn't POSIX, since over a decade I think. "c99" is POSIX, and it is
>> a shell script calling whatever "gcc" is first in the PATH, on most distros.
>
> Note that correct semantics for
Hi Uros,
It seems to me that (even if it was working “properly”, which it isn't)
‘-mfentry’ would break ABI on Darwin for both 32 and 64b - which require 16byte
stack alignment at call sites.
For Darwin, the dynamic loader enforces the requirement when it can and will
abort a program that tri
Hi Uros,
> On 21 May 2019, at 19:36, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 6:15 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that (even if it was working “properly”, which it isn't)
>> ‘-mfentry’ would break ABI on Darwin for both 32 and 64b
Hi Thomas,
> On 18 Jun 2019, at 17:40, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> I normally don't pay too much attention to how GCC builds proceed, but
> here, I was waiting for it to complete... ;-)
>
> Doing a native bootstrap build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, with
> '--enable-checking=yes,extra,df,fold,rtl'
> On 20 Jun 2019, at 15:21, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:05 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> In order to not buffer stderr output in LTO mode, I would like to remove
>> support for repo files (tlink). If I'm correctly it's only used by AIX
>> target. Would it be
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 6/20/19 9:53 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On June 20, 2019 5:09:55 PM GMT+02:00, "Martin Liška"
>>> wrote:
On 6/20/19 4:21 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20,
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:40, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/21/19 12:34 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>> On 21 Jun 2019, at 11:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 11:22, Martin Liška wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/2
> On 21 Jun 2019, at 13:49, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> I should have been clearer about Darwin:
>
> collect2 is required because it wraps the calling of lto-wrapper and ld.
>
> FWIW Darwin also passes all the “-frepo” testcases, however, I’m not
> aware of anyone actually
Hi Christophe,
we’ve been looking at some cases where Darwin tests fail or pass unexpectedly
depending on
options. It came as a surprise to see it failing a test for shared support
(since it’s always
supported shared libs).
-
It’s a long time ago, but in r216117 you added this to target-s
> On 24 Jun 2019, at 14:31, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/24/19 2:44 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 2:12 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>>
>>> On 6/24/19 2:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:01 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/21/19 2:57 PM, Jan
> On 27 Jun 2019, at 19:21, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>>
>> It's useful on targets without COMDAT support. Are there any such
>> that we care about at this point?
>>
>> If the problem is the combination with LTO, why not just prohibit that?
>
> The problem is that at the collect2 time we want to
en discussed recently, search the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> It will be supported after somebody implements it.
>>>
>>> If it is in fact implementable on top of the GNU ABI. Some variants
>>> of coroutines are not.
>>
>> it seems C++20 wi
> On 5 Aug 2019, at 17:30, Bill Seurer wrote:
>
> On 8/5/19 8:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> The first release candidate for GCC 9.2 is available from
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.2.0-RC-20190805/
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.2.0-RC-20190805
>> and shortly its mirror
Successful builds have been made on
i686-darwin{9,10),
powerpc-darwin9
x86_64-darwin{10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18}
bootstrapped with GCC (including Ada)
test results are from
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg01662.html
to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2019-08/msg01673.ht
> On 20 Aug 2019, at 17:15, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Richard Biener:
>
>> On August 20, 2019 5:19:33 PM GMT+02:00, Nathan Sidwell
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/26/19 6:03 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>> Hello Sebastian,
>>>>
>>&g
Hi Jim,
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote:
>
> We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the atomic
> structure size and alignment. And looking at this, it turned out that
> gcc and clang are implementing this differently. Consider this
> testcase
>
> rohan:2274$ cat t
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 10:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 08:21, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>>> On 23 Aug 2019, at 00:56, Jim Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> We got a change request for the RISC-V psABI to define the
Hi Joseph,
> On 23 Aug 2019, at 17:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2019, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> absolutely, it’s the psABI that’s lacking here - the compilers (as commented
>> by Richard Smith in a referenced thread) should not be making ABI up…
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 01:28, Joseph Myers wrote:
I've done the move of GCC wwwdocs to git (using the previously posted and
discussed scripts), including setting up the post-receive hook to do the
same things previously covered by the old CVS hooks, and minimal updates
to
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:25:30PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 01:28, Joseph Myers wrote:
I've done the move of GCC wwwdocs to git (using the previously posted
and
discussed scripts), including setting up the
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available
Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 11:07:05AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 17:42, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> I've been using git-style commit messages in GCC for the past five years.
>>
>> I think I only started four years ago :-)
>
> I amr210190
n9 through Darwin19.
tested with Darwin9 through Darwin19 SDKs on x86-64-darwin16,
applied to mainline,
thanks
Iain
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2019-11-06 Iain Sandoe
* gcc.dg/framework-1.c: Adjust test header path.
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/framework-1.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/f
Richard Biener wrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:49 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
On 10/01/2020 07:33, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
On Jan 9, 2020, at 5:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:34:32PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
As noted on overseers, once Saturday's DAT
> On 26 Jan 2017, at 10:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On 25 January 2017 at 22:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:36:13PM +0100, FX wrote:
>>> I am trying to determine what is the status of the powerpc-apple-darwin
>>> target for GCC. The last released version of GCC f
Hi Richard,
> On 12 May 2017, at 10:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> This is a heads-up that I am in the process of implementing the last
> of Jasons review comments on the dwarf2out parts of early LTO debug
> support. I hope to post final patches early next week after thoroughly
> re-testing e
Folks,
As many of you know, Apple has now released an AArch64-based version of macOS
and desktop/laptop platforms using the ‘M1’ chip to support it. This is in
addition to the existing iOS mobile platforms (but shares some of their
constraints).
There is considerable interest in the user-base
> On 8 Oct 2021, at 07:35, Thomas Koenig via Fortran
> wrote:
>
>
> On 07.10.21 17:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> It will also be a compatibility issue if users have code compiled on a LE
>>> system with GCC 11 and earlier with KIND=16, it will not link with GCC 12.
>> libgfortran ABI changed
Hi Thomas,
recognising that this is complex - the intent here is to see if there are ways
to partition the problem (where the pain falls does depend on the choices
made).
perhaps:
*A library (interface, name)
*B compiler internals
*C user-facing changes
> On 8 Oct 2021, at 17:26, Thomas K
> On 8 Oct 2021, at 23:55, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> Hi Iain,
>
>>> Things get interesting for user code, calling a routine compiled
>>> for double double with newer IEEE QP will result in breakage.
>> That would not happen with the proposal above, since the library would
>> have di
> On 9 Oct 2021, at 10:11, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>
> On 09.10.21 01:18, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>> I meant the case where the user writes, with an old, KIND=16 is double
>>> double compiler,
>>>
>>> subroutine foo(a)
>>>real(k
Hi Folks,
In the aarch64 Darwin ABI we have an unusual (OK, several unusual) feature of
the calling convention.
When an argument is passed *in a register* and it is integral and less than SI
it is promoted (with appropriate signedness) to SI. This applies when the
function parm is named only.
> On 10 Jan 2022, at 10:46, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> Iain Sandoe writes:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>> In the aarch64 Darwin ABI we have an unusual (OK, several unusual) feature
>> of the calling convention.
>>
>> When an argument is passed *in a regi
Hi Florian,
> On 10 Jan 2022, at 08:38, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Jeff Law via Gcc:
>
>> Most targets these days use registers for parameter passing and
>> obviously we can run out of registers on all of them. The key
>> property is the size/alignment of the argument differs depending on if
Hi FX,
> On 15 Jan 2022, at 14:19, FX via Gcc wrote:
>
>> The purpose of these asm tests is to verify that the analyzer doesn't
>> get confused by various inline assembler directives used in the source
>> of the Linux kernel. So in theory they ought to work on any host, with
>> a gcc configured
Hi Richard,
> On 20 Jan 2022, at 22:32, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
> Iain Sandoe writes:
>>> On 10 Jan 2022, at 10:46, Richard Sandiford
>>> wrot>> An alternative might be to make promote_function_arg a “proper”
>>> ABI hook, taking a cumulative_a
Hi Shivam,
> On 2 Apr 2022, at 06:57, Shivam Gupta wrote:
>
> I saw your last year's mail for the same topic on the GCC mailing list
> -https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-March/000230.html.
The patch was applied to GCC-11 (so is available one GCC-11 branch and will be
on GCC-12 when that
Hi Shivam,
> On 2 Apr 2022, at 17:48, Shivam Gupta wrote:
>
> May I ask why we need to specify --with-gxx-libcxx-include-dir= at
> compile/configure time of GCC?
The libc++ headers are not part of a base system install (on Darwin they are
part of either Xcode or Command Line Tools installat
> On 22 Apr 2022, at 15:08, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>
> Ben Boeckel writes:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 06:05:52 +0200, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it is. A header unit (unlike a named module) may export
>>> macros which could affect further dependencies. Consider:
>>>
>>>
Hi
> On 20 May 2022, at 09:02, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> The first release candidate for GCC 9.5 is available from
>
> https://sourceware.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9.5.0-RC-20220520/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git commit
> 1bc79c506205b6a5db82897340bdebaaf7ada93
Hi Richard,
> On 23 May 2022, at 07:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Sun, 22 May 2022, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>> On 20 May 2022, at 09:02, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>>
>>> The first release candidate for GCC 9.5 is available from
&
> On 23 May 2022, at 07:50, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>> On 23 May 2022, at 07:27, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 May 2022, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>>> On 20 May 2022, at 09:02, Richard Biener
Hi.
My ‘downstream’ have a situation in which they make use of a directory outside
of the configured GCC installation - and symlink from there to libraries in the
actual install tree.
e.g.
/foo/bar/lib:
libgfortran.dylib -> /gcc/install/path/lib/libgfortran.dylib
Now I want to find a way fo
Hi Jakub,
> On 21 Jun 2022, at 12:33, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 10.4 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.4.0-RC-20220621/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been ge
Hi Dave, folks,
It seems to me that it is plausible that one could use the JIT in a
heterogenous system, e.g. an x86_64-linux-host with some kind of co-processor
which is supported as a GCC target (and therefore can be loaded with jit-d
code) … but I’m not aware of anyone actually doing this?
, it would be good to establish if there is a meaningful use-case
for libgccjit in a cross-compiler, and if so fix the configuration - or (if no
meaningful use-case) exclude it as per the patch.
thanks
Iain
> On 26 Jun 2022, at 14:06, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi Dave, folks,
>
>
Hi,
I am clearly missing something here … can someone point out where it is?
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html#Variable%20Attributes
in the discussion of applying this to structure fields:
"The aligned attribute can only increase the alignment; but you can decre
> On 5 Sep 2022, at 09:53, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 3:33 PM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am clearly missing something here … can someone point out where it is?
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/
> On 25 Nov 2022, at 09:11, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>
> 在 2022/11/25 16:50, Marc Glisse 写道:
>> On Fri, 25 Nov 2022, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
>>> I am a Windows developer and I have been writing x86 and amd64 assembly for
>>> more than ten years. One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I
Hi Pete,
> On 25 Nov 2022, at 10:36, Peter Dyballa via Gcc wrote:
> On Mac OS X/macOS configure scripts leave conftest.dSYM subdirectories
> behind, created by dsymutil:
>
> checking for build system preprocessor... rm: conftest.dSYM: is a
> directory
> checking for build system e
Hi Paul,
> On 25 Nov 2022, at 20:08, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>
>> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm trying to use fairly recent GCC sources (the gcc-darwin branch to be
>>> precise) to build Ada
Hi Paul,
> On 25 Nov 2022, at 20:13, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Paul Koning via Gcc
>>> wrote:
I'm trying to use fairly rec
Hi Paul,
> On 26 Nov 2022, at 15:48, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:46 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 Nov 2022, at 20:13, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:08 PM Paul Koning wrote:
>&
> On 26 Nov 2022, at 16:42, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
>
>>> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is:
>>>
>>> GNAT
>>> In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compiler
>>> (GCC version 5.1 or later).
>>>
>>> so, if 5.1 is not workin
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo
