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 this
issue? I ask because it was unclear to me how
the
Geoff,
Should gcc/doc/install.texi be changed now to require
automake version 1.10 or later rather than the current
1.9.3?
Jack
On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 12:36:21PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>
> Hi Jack,
>
> I believe all this was covered in my message to gcc-patches re
Geoff,
The repost answers my questions. I was wondering if
the changes required the new automake and if so whether
they could be undone if someone regenerated those
configure files with a version of automake before
1.10? It would appear that's not the case.
Jack
On Darwin PPC and intel, we don't have proper libffi and
libjava support at 64-bit. However we would still like to build
the other compilers with multilib support. I noticed that RedHat
was building their gcc 4.1.1 with the following
# Hack to avoid building multilib libjava
perl -pi -e 's/
Mark,
What happened to the gcc 4.2 snapshot
tarball for this week?
Jack
I am having difficulty getting configure properly
regenerated in libjava so that Geoff's multilib changes
will take effect. What versions of automake and libtool
is required by the current gcc 4.2 branch? I have been trying
automake 1.10 and libtool 1.5.22. However whenever I use
autoreconf -I
Ben,
I believe I have puzzled out my problem. Geoff's multilib
changes needs a patch for the zlib and libjava configure.ac
(matching what he did for that file in libobjc). I have been
able to obtain a complete build for c, c++, objc and fortran
now on a G4 under Darwin8 after patching the config
Could anyone comment on the following? Geoff introduced
fixes in r117741 to allow multilib builds on 32-bit PowerPC
processors on Darwin PPC. However the necessary changes for the
libjava subdirectory were never introduced. I have been
attempting to fix this by modelling a patch after the change
I would more worried about the second issue if gcc 4.2 was
remotely close to release. However at the rate regressions are
being fixed (or not) in gcc 4.2 branch, I wouldn't hold my
breath as to which is released first (gcc 4.2 or Leopard).
Once Leopard is released, Darwin8 will become the 'prev
Does anyone know how the changes for gcc to require gmp/mpfr will effect the
multilib builds? In the past, gmp/mpfr in gfortran appeared to only be linked
into
the compiler itself so that a 32-bit/64-bit multilib build on Darwin PPC only
required gmp/mpfr for 32-bit to be installed. Will any of
Can anyone confirm that the libffi shared libraries
are properly built in gcc 4.2 branch (or trunk) on
i386-apple-darwin8? I have had a report that the most
recent snapshot of gcc 4.2 doesn't build libffi on
Macintel boxes. This is rather disturbing since
I assumed that Sandro's patches were all
Darwin. Why don't you try to get that patch into
gcc trunk now that gcc 4.2 has branched?
Jack
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 02:26:11PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2006,@3:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >Can anyone confirm that the libffi shared libraries are prope
Steve,
That comment isn't quite fair. Currently on MacOS X
10.4.8, we only have 32 failures for both -m32 and -m64
in the fortran testsuite. Three quarters of those are
definitely due to the problem with the long double
system calls not being mapped and the other ones
(due to isfinite breakage)
I noticed that boehm-gc check doesn't work from within
the dejagnu framework. According to the notes in PR11412,
this was going to be fixable once the multi-lib stuff
was moved to the top level. I assume this has happened by
now so can we fix this for gcc 4.2?
Jack
I noticed that fastjar no longer appears to be built and installed on
darwin in gcc 4.2 branch or trunk. What is the status of this utility
for gcc? Looking at the RedHat gcc 4.1 packaging for clues, I was
surprised to find that they have a build requires for /usr/bin/fastjar
while they package
I noticed that in gcc trunk and gcc 4.2 branch
that multilib builds of zlib occur. Does gcc
actually use the multlib zlib? For instance on
x86_64 linux does the 32-bit zlib get used or on
Darwin does the 64-bit zlib get used? We are
considering using the --with-system-zlib option
when building g
I noticed that Apple's gcc compiler in MacOS X 10.4
creates fat binaries in /usr/lib rather than using a
ppc64 or x86_64 subdirectory like FSF gcc. Do the Darwin
gcc developers ever intend to replicate the use of fat
binaries for FSF gcc (in gcc 4.3 perhaps) or will
we always use separate subdi
Eric,
So will FSF gcc on Darwin maintain the current 64-bit subdirectory
or will it eventually migrate to using fat binaries as Apple gcc does?
Jack
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 07:02:10AM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
>
> All of that is done by a script that calls configure and post
I noticed today that gcc 4.2 branch seems to create a bogus symlink
on Darwin PPC. A symlink for libgcc_s_x86_64.1.dylib is created that
points at libgcc_s.1.dylib. However libgcc_s.1.dylib is not a quad
binary...
file libgcc_s.1.dylib
libgcc_s.1.dylib: Mach-O fat file with 2 architectures
libgcc
The current gcc 4.2 branch (revision 122824) fails to build
on powerpc-apple-darwin8 with the error...
gcc -g -no-cpp-precomp -DHAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZERS=0
-fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissin
The breakage on powerpc-apple-darwin8 seems to be due
to revision 122782...
PR target/26090
* target.h (targetm.asm.out.reloc_rw_mask): New.
* target-def.h (TARGET_ASM_RELOC_RW_MASK): New.
(TARGET_ASM_OUT): Use it.
* targhooks.c, targhooks.h (default_relo
It would seem we need to change...
Index: gcc/config/darwin.c
===
/usr/local/bin/gccdiff: line 1: i#!/bin/bash: No such file or directory
--- gcc/config/darwin.c (revision 122839)
+++ gcc/config/darwin.c (working copy)
@@ -1112,7 +
The current gcc 4.2 branch is exhibiting some new
testsuite failures in the gcc testsuite on powerpc-apple-darwin8.
Specifically I now see...
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc42-4.1.-20070312/gcc-4.2-20070312/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/vmx/vmx.exp
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/vmx/dct.c -O0 (test for excess
I am noticing one other issue with current gcc 4.2 branch
on powerpc-apple-darwin8. We seem to have failures for the
following libgomp testsuite tests...
FAIL: libgomp.c++/pr30703.C -O0 (test for excess errors)
WARNING: libgomp.c++/pr30703.C -O0 compilation failed to produce executable
FAI
Interestingly, while...
gcc-4 pr30703.C -fmessage-length=0 -fopenmp -O0 -L/sw/lib/gcc4.2/lib -lgomp
-lstdc++ -lm -m32 -o ./pr30703.exe
/usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
__Unwind_Resume
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8
gcc-4 pr30703.C -fmessage-length=0 -f
Jakub,
So shouldn't we either XFAIL pr30703.C on *-apple-darwin* or
specify that the -shared-libgcc flag should be used on that
target for pr30703.C?
Jack
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:11:35AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:41PM -0400, Jack
It looks like modifying the testsuite scripts for libgomp
to properly compile c++ files with g++ will be pretty messy.
Can we just fix PR30703 for now with the simple change...
Index: libgomp/testsuite/libgomp.c++/pr30703.C
===
/u
I am a seeing the following warnings in the initial
bootstrap of gcc 4.2.0 RC1 on powerpc-apple-darwin8...
gcc -c -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../.
I am wondering if it is at all possible to coax the gcc 4.0
testsuite to run cleanly with a binary installation of gcc 4.0?
That is does the testsuite absolutely have to be run from within
the gcc build directory structure or can one run it standalone
(to see where a given gcc 4.0 distribution s
Even if there were complete g77 compatibility in g95, folks may want
to stick with the g77 version from gcc 3.4 for awhile purely for
performance reasons. In doing some test runs of the APBS
Adaptive Poisson-Boltzmann Solver program, I discovered that the g95
built binary runs 60% slower than t
The Fink project has adopted the use of the g++-3.3 compiler
as their default for compiling fink packages under MacOS X 10.4.
However they are allowing the default gcc compiler to remain as
gcc-4.0. Are there likely to be any odd issues with mixing code
from the two compiler generations? In par
I have run across a problem building xplor-nih with the g95
compiler from www.g95.org from which I understand gfortran is
derived. Xplor-nih is a mix of c, c++ and fortran code. The
main calling program a c shell which call the fortran subroutines.
These fortran subroutines in turn can call th
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 on Darwin. Thanks in
advance for considering this
Geoffrey,
Well the gcc4.info for the package containing gfortran in fink has...
Depends: gmp-shlibs (>= 4.1.3-11), cctools (>= 576-1) | odcctools (>= 576-200503
27), %N-shlibs, libiconv
BuildDepends: gmp (>= 4.1.3-11), libiconv-dev
which is a tad confusing since I guess it implies that cctools
I am trying to build xplor-nih on MacOS X 10.4 using gcc 4.1.0
branch's gcc and g++ instead of Apple's and am running into a really
strange error. I find the following linkage fails...
g++-4 -bundle -flat_namespace -undefined suppress _xplorWrap.o
libswigpy-xplor.dylib -o _xplorWrap.so
-L/Use
Andreas,
Are you sure gnu gcc shouldn't support this? I see -bundle under the
Machine Dependent Options under Darwin options which are not marked as
APPLE-ONLY. I understood that to mean that it should be present in the
gnu gcc compiler (like -all_load which is in the same list and is
support
I can't find a patch either using google but I did find the following
posting which describes the problem and a workaround...
http://www.mail-archive.com/fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg10604.html
Jack
Here is another posting which describes the problem a little clearer...
http://lists.apple.com/archives/darwin-development/2003/Jun/msg0.html
So gcc needs to be fixed to not misparse -bundle, when it is the first
argument to gcc, as being the "-b Machine" target option.
Shouldn't the fix
Thanks. It applies with offsets to the current 4.0 branch. Hopefully we can get
it in both branches soon. Currently everyone on Darwin is just hacking their
Makefiles around the problem.
Jack
In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead
of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the
gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's
compiler I can have a Makefile entry like...
createSharedModule = $(CXX) -bundle \
Geoff,
What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the
-bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't.
Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work
be backportable into gnu gcc?
Jack
Geoff,
The problem is that I haven't ever submitted any paperwork so
anything I touch will be tainted. If you could post a revised patch
that applies to gcc main trunk, I'll test it locally and confirm
that it works.
Jack
Does anyone know if the -fstack-protector option in gcc 4.1 branch
works on Darwin 8 (Tiger)? I can compile binaries with it but I'm not
sure how to test its functionality. Also, this is based on IBM's ProPolice
code, right?
Jack
Eric,
Well what I have is a gfortran 4.1 branch fink package built using
the 20050728 cvs with the new cray pointer patches donated by LANL.
What I am trying to do is the following. I have been trying to build
xplor-nih (which is a mix of c, c++ and fortran) with gfortran (it
works okay with g77
Richard,
Do you think I should be able to build gcc itself with the
-fstack-protector flag and what is the most appropriate way to
achieve that (ie brute force using a CFLAG or some configure
flag)? I am interested in doing this so that I can have a
libgfortran built with -fstack-protector to
Richard,
Is there some sample code that one can use to test the
functionality of the code generated by -fstack-protector?
Also, if one has a buggy program that is corrupting the stack,
what is the expected behavior of this program when compiled
with the stack protection code? Should it always a
Is it possible to leverage the new -fstack-protector-all feature
in gcc 4.1 branch to discover the origin of memory leaks that are
clobbering the stack? I have a fortran program which segfaults in
the next write it attempts after a particular read. I have compiled
this fortran code with -fstack-
FX,
I forgot to mention that since the gcc cvs I built last night now
contains your ISATTY and TTYNAM intrinsics patch, I regressed the
portion of the xplor.patch which worked around the prior absence
of the ISATTY intrinsic in gfortran. The resulting xplor-nih build
works fine.
One other q
What exactly are all of the new libgcc versions created when building
the current gcc cvs on MacOS X 10.4. I find that I have...
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 20732 Oct 13 23:08 libgcc_s.10.4.dylib
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 20968 Oct 13 23:08 libgcc_s.10.5.dylib
-rw-r--r-- 1 root admin 24
In case folks haven't noticed, there has been major breakage of
the gfortran in gcc 4.1 on Darwin. The problem appears to be due to
the fact that weakrefs aren't properly honored in the Darwin linker.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24991
This apparently is the same issue causin
David,
Thanks for the clarification. While one could argue that the breakage was
due to an aggressive introduction of changes into gfortran of the gcc 4.1
branch,
it is definitely is more honest to say that the Darwin target has been broken
for sometime now with the weakref failures in the gcc
For the last few months, gcc 4.1 has had problems compling
the following code in posRMSDPot.cc in xplor-nih...
IStringStream iNoComments( stripped );
// read NOEPot table
CDSStringStreamBuf dum;
while ( !iNoComments.eof() && !iNoComments.fail() ) {
String word; iNoComments >> word;
Where exactly are the compiler flags new to gcc 4.1.0 described.
I now understand that -ffriend-injection can be used with g++ to overcome
the new strictness about the scope of friends. However, I am seeing another
compile error in xplor-nih of the form...
cdsVector.cc: In function 'CDSVector
In compiling xplor-nih under gcc 4.1 (it is a mix of c, c++ and fortran)
I discovered one of its c++ source files causes segfaults at optimization
levels higher than -O1 unless I add -fno-strict-aliasing to the compile
flags. In that case, there program passes all of its testsuite without
any s
In benchmarking a build of xplor-nih (which is a mix of c++,c, and
fortran) built entirely under gcc 4.1 or built using gcc 4.1's gfortran
and either Apple's gcc 4.0.1 or gcc 3.3, I have noticed that there
was a significant speed regression in the c++ code generation between
gcc 3.3 and gcc 4.0
Richard,
I built current gcc 4.2 branch under MacOS X 10.4.3 and unfortunately
while -Wstrict-aliasing does catch the error from PR 14024, it doesn't catch
whatever strict aliasing error exists in dint-node.cc of xplor-nih. Is there
a list somewhere of all those strict aliasing violations which
Richard,
Actually, while the currently offending file, dint-node.cc which
must be built with -fno-strict-aliasing, doesn't report any strict
aliasing violations in gcc 4.2, I do find that the rest of xplor-nih
is filled with them. I will report these upstream. They seem to all be
of the form..
Giovanni,
I'll see what I can do in terms of profiling the xplor-nih code
with Shark on MacOS X. However in the near term, I would strongly
urge the gcc developers to backport the changes necessary to have
-Wstrict-aliasing issue warnings for c++ in gcc 4.1. I rebuilt
xplor-nih under gcc trunk
Is there some place where all the existing forms of strict-aliasing
warnings are documented? So far I have only seen the error...
dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules
when building c++ code with gcc trunk (4.2). I am wondering how many other
types of warnings ca
Mike,
Do you mean using -fno-threadsafe-statics or do you have any other
inlining changes in mind?
Jack
Well I tried a few different builds of xplor-nih tonight with the
following optimization flags for the gcc and g++ compilers...
testsuite in seconds
xplorpython tcl
-O3 -ffastma
I am seeing a new failure in the gcc testsuite for the gcc 4.1
branch built on MacOS X 10.4.4...
Running
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc4-4.1.0-20060114/gcc-4.1-20060114/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/cpp/cpp.exp
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/_Pragma3.c (test for excess errors)
Is this expected? None of the other archi
Joseph,
Thanks for the hint. Correcting the timestamps with...
contrib/gcc_update --touch
...eliminated the failure in _Pragma.c. However I am still baffled as
to why this was necessary since I was building from a clean svn pull
of the gcc 4.1 branch using svn 1.3.0. Is svn that broken th
Does anyone know which upstream boehm-gc release FSF gcc's copy was
last synchronized against? The system libunwinder.dylib (providing the
compatibility unwinder on darwin) has been recompiled, without source
changes, in OS X 10.11 El Capitan. This recompilation with the newer
Apple clang 7.0 co
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 12:58 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:04:06AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>
>>> See
>>>
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/llvm-to-get-fortran-compiler-that-targets-parallel-gpus-
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>
>>> To put this in a (timeline) perspective:
>>>
>>> On the 18th of March, 2000, I announced A
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> Of course one unknown is whether PGI had already done any work
>> internally with the llvm middle-/back-end. If so, they might not be
>> starting from scratch.
>
>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>> On 11/16/2015 11:02 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, this posting has a bit more detail on the actual implementation...
>>>
>>> http://lists
Shouldn't there also be a back port of...
r235231 | bje | 2016-04-19 20:44:21 -0400 (Tue, 19 Apr 2016) | 2 lines
Attach PR number to most recent entry.
---
FX,
No problem here x86_64-apple-darwin15 with a build using...
$ gcc-fsf-6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-fsf-6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc6/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0/6.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0
Configured with: ../gcc-6.1.0/configure --prefix
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:48:53PM -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently contributed some fixes against GCC trunk, gcc-4_9-branch, and
> gcc-4_8-branch for which I need the requisite legal paperwork.
>
> However, I'd like to backport these particular fixes to the MacPorts
> Projec
Is there a reason why the Serious Regressions tables, displayed by
the links in the 'Release Series and Status' section at
https://gcc.gnu.org, no longer have a column for the priority
(importance) of each bug? We used to have that and it was quite nice
to be able to click on the priority colum
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:12:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Is there a reason why the Serious Regressions tables, displayed by
>> the links in the 'Release Series and Status' section at
>> https:
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:31:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:12:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> >> Is
What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of
maintenance releases of 5.0. Will the next maintenance release be 5.1
or 5.0.1? I assume if it is 5.1, then after branching for release of
5.0, trunk will become 6
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
>> gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of
>> maintenance rele
Is this the policy going forward for the 6.0 release as well? If it is
being done just to avoid the stigma of a .0 release, it really smacks
of being too cute by half.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2015.03.21 at 12:11 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On
, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 March 2015 at 17:28, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Is this the policy going forward for the 6.0 release as well?
>
> Yes, as it says on that webpage.
>
>> If it is
>> being done just to avoid the stigma of a .0 release, it really smacks
>> o
Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
-Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3 but am
not having much luck Googling for the original submission in the
gcc-patches archives. According to
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, the initial c++-11 support
g
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 March 2015 at 16:16, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
>> -Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3
>
> Are you sure? It doesn't exist f
What is the current schedule for the gcc 4.9.3 maintenance
release? Isn't it due this month?
Jack
On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 5 branch is still open for regression and documentation fixes
> but it's about time to close the branch with a last release from it.
> Thus at the end of the next week I plan to do a RC for GCC 5.5 following
> with
Sebastian,
Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 using -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops under gcc
trunk at r169776, with -fgraphite-identity and with -fgraphite-identity
-ftree-loop-linear. I am surprised at the absence of any impact from
-ftree-loop-lin
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:08:09AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Sebastian,
> > Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks on
> > x86_64-apple-darwin10 using -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops under gcc
Richard,
The ___divdc3 symbol on Snow Leopard in libSystem is less accurate
than that in FSF libgcc (PR42333). We plan to use DECLARE_LIBRARY_RENAMES
to provide an alternative symbol ___ieee_divdc3 to access the FSF libgcc
___divdc3 symbol when libSystem.dylib is linked first and
!flag_unsafe_m
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 09:40:41AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 08:12 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > what is the correct value is use for the enum entry of the ___divdc3
> > symbol? Is it END_BUILTINS-1 or END_BUILTINS-2? Thanks in advance for
> > any cla
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:51:55AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > So, in c-common.c we have:
> >
> > targetm.init_builtins ();
> > build_common_builtin_nodes ();
> >
> > and in f95-1.c we have:
> >
> > build_common_builtin_nodes ();
> > t
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 05:27:37PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13 February 2011 09:01, Csaba Raduly wrote:
> >
> > Any idea what could be the problem and how to fix it? Should I just
> > run a simple "make"?
>
> Questions about using or building gcc should be sent to
> gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
>
> Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
> compiler that works again on darwin.
>
> That said,
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 06:32:30PM +0100, Prof. Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> We announce the availability of PPL 0.11.1, a new release of the Parma
> Polyhedra Library. This release includes several important bug fixes
> and performance improvements.
Roberto,
Have you had any reports of installa
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 04:42 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 06:32:30PM +0100, Prof. Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>>>
>>> We announce the availability of PPL 0.11.1, a new release of the Parma
&
Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing a
bootstrap
failure which appears as...
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:58:41AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 03:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing
> > a bootstrap
> > failure which appears as...
>
> > make[4]: *** No rule to make
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:16:19AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
> * Dave Korn wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:28:15AM CET:
> > http://mad-scientist.net/make/autodep.html
> >
> > although note that where that recommends using "-include" (under
> > "Avoiding ``No rule to make
With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was made to
the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The design
of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o object files tolerated
additional
sections as long as they didin't contain symbols. Wi
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 09:34:01PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was made
> > to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
> > made to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The
> > design
> > of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o obje
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:19:13AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>> With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
>
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
> > made to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The
> > design
> > of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o obje
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:55:02AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I agree that this is a better solution. This error was put into the
> >> linker to detect some overflow conditions for part of the c
1 - 100 of 589 matches
Mail list logo
