Re: XFAILing gcc.c-torture/execute/mayalias-2.c -O3 -g (PR 28834)

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:47:57AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > It's not punishing the testcase; it's recognising that we have a bug > > tracking system to track regressions and having "expected unexpected > > FAILs" is helpful neither to users wishing to know if their compiler built > > a

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:11:29PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > > > The GCC 4.2.0 RC1 build has failed (on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) with: > > > > > > Comparing stages 2 and 3 > > > Bootstrap

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:30:48PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Joe Buck wrote: > > >> For what it's worth, I bootstrapped on a few different GNU/Linux > >> systems with different kernels and base compilers. I only saw > >> bootstrap comparison failures

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:48:12PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > At one point I considered trying a search to see which files get > miscompiled, by combining stage1 object files from a run with 3.2.3 and > 3.4.2 and trying to do the rest of the bootstrap with that, then varying > which .

Re: Building mainline and 4.2 on Debian/amd64

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > * Steven Bosscher: > > > >> On 3/18/07, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> I don't need the 32-bit libraries, so disabling their compilation > >>> would be fine. --enable

Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:27:25AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 03/17/07 14:28: > > > This is the project proposal that I am planning to submit to Google > > Summer of Code 2007. It is based on previous work of Jeffrey Laws, > > Diego Novillo and others. I hope someon

Re: Building mainline and 4.2 on Debian/amd64

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:35:15AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On 3/19/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >This brings up a point: the build procedure doesn't work by default on > >Debian-like amd64 distros, because they lack 32-bit support (which is > >pr

Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:34:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > Perhaps this ought to be looked at again with some seriousness. > > I think this is an idea whose time has either come, or will shortly. > GCC's -O0 is much more

Re: Google SoC Project Proposal: Better Uninitialized Warnings

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:32:19PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>>>> Joe Buck writes: > > Joe> What worries me is that we can't afford to make -O0 run significantly > Joe> slower than it does now. Cycle speeds are no longer increasing, we have > Joe

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:16:42PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > > > As for what is best to do, I don't know. But I do know that complexity > > is bad, and that GCC is very complex. You are absolutely right about > > there being hard limits. There are trade-offs req

Re: Information regarding -fPIC support for Interix gcc

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:22:37PM +0800, Mayank Kumar wrote: > I am currently looking at interix gcc and found that -fPIC generated > binaries crash although not all binaries crash. This has been known for > quite some time since I found a lot of posts about it. I want to know if > this issue has

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:28:15PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote: > >8-bit tree code (baseline): > > > >real0m51.987s > >user0m41.283s > >sys 0m0.420s > > > >subcodes (this patch): > > > >real0m53.168s > >user0m41.297s > >sys 0m0.4

Re: [Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Documenting GCC 4.2 changes

On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > 2006-02-07 Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > config/sol26.h (CPP_SUBTARGET_SPEC): Accept -pthread. > > doc/invoke.texi (SPARC options): Document -pthread. > > It's only an alias for the existing -pthreads, not worth mentionin

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:08]: > >> C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for nonconformant code, > >> following the C++ frot-end defa

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:11:21PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:01]: > >> >Thanks for the explanation - this explains what I'm seeing. Is there > >> >a good reason against ch

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:23:45AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic-errors. > > In C++, a pedwarn is an error by default, a warning with -fpermissive. OK, so the change is that pedwarns from the preprocessor were previously warnings

Re: Clean-up of C++ header dependencies

On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:39:25PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I noticed that you cleaned up C++ header dependencies in response to > PR28080. This means that *a lot* of C++ code will no longer build. Rather, programs that have never been built with any compiler other than g++, but that assu

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook: > > >If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already > >obsolete release > >(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

> > Many of the improvements in c++ code generation were as a result of > > tree-ssa, you only get with 4.x. On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > It is however a bigger step change, and a correspondingly bigger risk. > There are arguments in favour of not running with th

Re: -Wswitch-enum and -Wswitch-default

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 02/04/07, Ching, Jimen (US SSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of > >> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are. > > > >Note; a bunch of -W options has the sentence "This

Re: RFC: Enable __declspec for Linux/x86

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:16PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On 4/2/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On 4/2/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I suspect I'd want this for x86 darwin as well. > > > >Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code: > > int i = 0; > int j = 2; > int k = 3; > > If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been > executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is

Re: Variable scope debug info

I wrote: > >If adding scope attributes every time more than one variable is declared > >adds to the already immense bulk of C++ debugging information, I'd > >prefer to live with the bug myself. On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > Out of interest, why? I haven't looked int

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Brian Ellis wrote: > Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no > records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't > tested this at the moment though), however, static initializers like > that could easily be

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > >int i = 0; > >int j = 2; > >int n = CalculateSomething( j, &i ); > >int k = 3; > > I don't really understand, because the problem remains that if you > break before int n... and do print n you get a value, whereas you > should get an er

Re: Variable scope debug info

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote: > So the general concensus is that's it's not worth doing? > Hypothetically, if I did it and it didn't make much difference, would > it be worth submitting a patch? Or should I just give up before I > start? It might be worth doing. I thi

Re: Super bad accuracy in the output of gprof when is used -pg.

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:23:42AM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > I've probed the profiling of p7zip-4.44 (c++, lzma, > linux-2.6.20.5.tar as data). > > There is an absolute lack of profile timing information because of > a lot of 0.00 and little bit of 0.01. There is not entry of >0.01 seconds. Y

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:51:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | One could argue that issuing some type of diagnostic (either at > | compile time or run time) would be helpful for people that don't > | remember to write correct code 100% of the time

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > >I believe you're confused about the semantics. > >The issue here is that the *size of object* requested can be > >represented. That is independent of whether the machine has enough > >memory or not. So, new_handler is a red herring On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 06:05:35P

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 04:01:57PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes: > > | Joe Buck writes: > | >If a check were to be implemented, the right thing to do would be to throw > | >bad_alloc (for the default new) or return 0 (for the nothro

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 07:41:59AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > >A solution is using the -shared option to generate ".so" library. > > That does not solve things in environments like embedded > environments where there are no shared libraries. > > > >Another future solutio

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

> > Florian Weimer writes: > >>I don't think this check is correct. Consider num = 0x3334 and > >>size = 6. It seems that the check is difficult to perform efficiently > >>unless the architecture provides unsigned multiplication with overflow > >>detection, or an instruction to implement __bu

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:44:26AM +1200, Ross Smith wrote: > On Monday, 9 April 2007 13:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > > > This code is bigger than Joe Buck's. > > > > Joe Buck's code: 10 instructions > > Ross Ridge's code: 16 instructions > > Ross Smith's code: 16 instructions > > Well, yes, but it

Re: Integer overflow in operator new. Solved?

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >#include > > > >void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best > > unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)size * num; > > if (tmp >= 0x800

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:49:09PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >We've working in linear address spaces. > >How for segmented address spaces? You give me examples. > > Intel has had several popular processors with segmented addresses > includi

Re: Information regarding -fPIC support for Interix gcc

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:05:36AM +0800, Mayank Kumar wrote: > That information was really very helpful. I have been able to localize the bug. The issue is in the assembler. When I create a object file using the assembler(as test.s -o test.o), the contents of .rdata which contains the jump

Re: [RFA] C++ language compatibility in sources [was RE: Add missing casts in gengtype-lex]

> >> However, bundling them all up into big patches would probably run over the > >> size limit for "small patches that don't require paperwork". On 12 April 2007 16:31, Paul Brook wrote: >> The size limit for non-copyrightable changes is accumulative. ie. it applies >> the same whether change

Re: EH references

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:40:17PM +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > Hello all, > > Is that any reference (paper, guide, whatever,) on how gcc is handling > exceptions in intermediate code? Is it based on a known (published) > method? Is it intuitive and explained somewhere? See http://www.codesour

Re: EH references

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:25:34AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > See > > http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html > > Despite the fact that this document is called "Itanium C++ ABI", g++ uses > this approach on most platforms, including x86 (there is another >

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:44:36PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > The relevant code is in opts.c: > > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5); > set_param_value ("max-inl

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:32AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here. > Unless a function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single > callsite, or unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of > the function body, isn

Re: gcc preprocessor

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:07:07PM -0400, drizzle drizzle wrote: > Can some one tell me if gcc preprocessor can support in some way > the following > features You are asking a beginner C programming question. gcc's preprocessor does what standard C preprocessors do.

Re: GCC mini-summit - unicorn with rainbows

> > 10) Eric Christopher reported that Tom Tromey (who was not present) > > had suggested a new mascot for gcc: a unicorn with rainbows. This > >was met with general approval, and Eric suggested that everybody > >e-mail Tom with their comments. I personally would like to see > >

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:58:39AM -0700, Ollie Wild wrote: > >Related to this: have you guys ever considered to making the -On > >flags dependent on the architecture? > > It came up in a few side conversations. As I understand it, RMS has > decreed that the -On optimizations shall be architectur

Re: gcc preprocessor

On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:27:48PM -0400, drizzle drizzle wrote: > Ok can you tell me what directives does it provide to do what I > have said . And I am not a beginner to gcc. The answer is that gcc provides what the C standard specifies and nothing more. You appear to want a more complica

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 14:44 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > At work we use -O3 since it gives 5% performance gain against -O2. > > profile-feedback has many flags and there is no overview of it in the > > doc IIRC. Who will use it except GCC developpers? Who knows about your > > advice? On Sun

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we run SPEC on every > > architecture, and then make -O2 be the set of optimization options that > > happens to do best there, however bizarre. On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 01:21:20PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: >

some 4.2.0 RC2 test results

Here are some 4.2.0 RC2 test results (all languages except Ada). First, i686-pc-linux-gnu on RHEL 3. NOTE: if this release is built with the shipped compiler (3.2.3 based), we get a bootstrap comparison failure; the same is true with the FSF 3.2.3. This report used 3.4.2 as the bootstrap compile

Re: Question w.r.t. `'class Foo' has virtual functions but non-virtualdestructor` warning.

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 08:06:27PM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote: > In my mind, the times you want to silence the warning (without defining > the virtual dtor) are when you *know* that it will never be used that way, > because it's part of the contract of the class. In my view, if a class defines v

Re: request for timings - makedepend

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 12:07:30AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > ... report (a) the numbers reported by the "time" command, real1m25.959s user0m6.070s sys 0m2.820s (b) what > sort of machine this is and how old, dual 2.175 GHz Xeon with 2GB memory, about three years old > and (c)

Re: [Bug c++/19199] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a reference to a temporary

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 08:02:40PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: > [ min/max expr ] > So, maybe the extension is not used very much. Perhaps it should be > removed? Then we'll just get RMS pissed off at the SC again; he hates it when we remove his extensions. (We've sometimes done so anyway, but

Re: [Bug c++/19199] [3.3/3.4/4.0/4.1 Regression] Wrong warning about returning a reference to a temporary

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:49:05AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > >>I'd be happy to see it (deprecated and then) removed, but I think we'd > >>need > >>buy-in from the C front end maintainers. As extensions go, it's actually > >>not > >>that bad; the semantics are rela

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:47:13AM +0100, Ronny Peine wrote: > Hi again, > > a small proof. > > if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then > > A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics). That is an incomplete definition, as 0^X is well-defined. > 0^0 = lim A->0, A>0 (exp(0*ln(A))

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:18:58PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Greg Schafer wrote: > > >This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 > >target > >milestone on this bug: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166 > > > >Any chan

Re: Bad link on webpage

Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On the page, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html, the link > > http://www.nedprod.com/programs/gccvisibility.html (near the end of the > > document) contains > > > > ``DOMAIN HOLDING PAGE > > ... On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 09:43:42AM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wro

Re: GCC 3.4.x => 4.0 compatiblity

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:39:28PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote: > Andrew Muraco wrote: > >After the compiler is installed im going to recompile glibc using gcc > >4.0 and recompile other major parts of the system > > This is probably more trouble than it is worth. gcc-4 won't be fully > ABI comp

Re: Feature request: Globalize symbol

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 10:30:00AM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James E Wilson) wrote on 10.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 17:48, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > This isn't a source-level modification, by definition. > > > > And I could argue that m

Re: Write after approval - processed by "None".

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:57:02PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote: > System adminstration work is performed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] works just as well, since it's the same machine by a different name. On this list we should be advertising the gcc.gnu.org name, I think. I've usually

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: system.h:#define abort() fancy_abort (__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__) I agree that this is the best technical solution, even if cross-jumping were not an issue. Also: On Monday 14 March 2005 04:00, Richard Stallman wrote: > > But you recommend a

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:44:09PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 'abort: core dumped' is not a good user experience. If code is being > shipped with naked aborts in it, that is where the problem lies. > > You're entitled to your opinion, but such a conclusion requires much > stronger b

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 06:44:16PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > After some 20 years of developing popular free software, I have > somewhat of an idea what users are likely to do. Many of us have developed software for a similar period of time, and yet feel differently. > I don't use > fancy_a

Re: Questions about trampolines

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:20:16PM +1100, Russell Shaw wrote: > How is a pointer to a nested function any different to a pointer to > an un-nested function? Why need trampolines? Because you have to pass the context of that nested function somehow, so that it can access variables in the outer func

Re: PR 19893 & array_ref bug

On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 04:42:03PM -0800, Steve Ellcey wrote: > The simplest solution would probably be to ignore __aligned__ attributes > completely when we have an array. Or to do the change you suggested for > the vector tests and have the attribute attached to the array and not > the element t

Re: Hand-written rec-descent parser of GCC-4.1 is WRONG!!!.

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:41:12AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html > > > > New Languages and Language specific improvements > > C and Objective-C > > > > * The old Bison-based C and Objective-C parser has been replaced > > by a new, faster hand-wri

Re: Hand-written rec-descent parser of GCC-4.1 is WRONG!!!

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:22:26AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Do you demonstrate that "C++ is not LALR(1)"? I'll leave that to you as a homework assignment. Actually, C++ is not LALR(N) for any N. Get out the C++ grammar and figure it out, it's an easy proof. Come back when you have prov

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

I wrote: > But what are you saying to those users who don't like it that GNU programs > abort silently when they discover bugs in themselves? Aren't you saying > "tough" in a somewhat more polite way? On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:23:55AM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > No, because nobody has com

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

Ronny Peine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Well yes in the general case it's not applieable, but x^0 is 1 in the > | complex case, too. On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:08:58PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Just repeating it does not make it a reality. However, repeating it does annoy the readersh

Re: Overriding optimization for individual portions of C code

On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 02:46:30PM -0800, JCA wrote: >Is it possible with gcc to specify that a portion of code should be > compiled without any optimizations, overriding the -O option given in > the command line? The solution consisting of isolating that portion of > code, and placing it in a

Re: Installation Instructions

On Thu, Mar 24, 2005 at 09:37:46AM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, GNU, > > In ./gcc-3.4.3/INSTALL/test.html , in section: > "0.5 Submitting test results > . > This script uses the >>>Mail<<< program to send the results, so make sure it > is in your PATH.." > > Not having "Mail

Re: Profile-directed feedback and remote testing

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | When we generate data for feedback, we insert the .gcda name into the > | object file as an absolute path. As a result, when we try to do > | remote testing, we lose, as, in general the remote file system does > | not have the same file hierarchy as t

Re: BOOT_CFLAGS and -fomit-frame-pointer

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:45:36PM +1100, Greg Schafer wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 12:06:33PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > > What is wrong exactly? Why should 2 different build processes generate the > > same executable? Is there a (written) rule about this? > > No, there is no written

Re: Profile-directed feedback and remote testing

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 08:03:55PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | That wouldn't have saved me in the case described above, as the pathnames > | are already set in the executable. A *runtime* way of altering the > | locations of t

Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?

On Fri, Mar 25, 2005 at 10:10:17PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [ dropping C89 functions ] > > What would that buy us? I mean, aside from the obvious "less to > > maintain" reason? > > Less to maintain is all I was hoping for. I think the configure > scrip

Re: Copyright status of example code in Bugzilla - how to deal with when writing testcases.

On Monday, March 28, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Toon Moene wrote: > >How do we deal with this, copyright-wise ? Do we have to take special > >care when deriving test-cases from them ? On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > The canonical method I use is to delete all aspects of t

Re: Copyright status of example code in Bugzilla - how to deal with when writing testcases.

On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 10:04:40AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > The code for these testcases submitted so far are about 12 lines a piece > > and have almost nothing which can tell where they came from (Other than > > comments in the code). > > Tha

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

RMS wrote: > >GCC's primary purpose is to be the compiler for the GNU system. It is > >used for many other purposes too, and it is good for GCC to serve more > >purposes, but they're not as important for the GNU Project, even > >though they are all important for some users. On Tue, Mar 29, 2005

Re: Name of files and functions etc.

On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 08:24:23PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Tom Tromey writes: > > As for pure cleanups like rearranging files... I'm not super > > interested in this, but I think we ought to consider such patches on > > their own merits, just as we would at any other time. > > Yes, that's

Re: Copyright status of example code in Bugzilla - how to deal with when writing testcases.

Daniel Berlin wrote: > >IE if we added a very large warning to the submission page that said > >"PLEASE NOTE: BY SUBMITTING A TESTCASE, YOU AGREE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT > >TO CREATE, USE, AND PUBLISH EITHER YOUR VERBATIM TESTCASE OR A > >DERIVATIVE UNDER GCC'S CURRENT LICENSE" > >or something of t

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 10:16:44AM -0800, Kelly Murphy wrote: > I know we'd find something like that really handy for some of the > embedded stuff we're doing. > > There's the case where we'd like to have the files of a subsystem to > be optimized but we want a handful of functions that directly a

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | A busy-loop function is used to effect a delay, not too precise, > | but portably. Like > | > | #define COUNT 1000 > | > | void f() { > |/*volatile*/ /*register*/ int i; > | > |for (i = 0; i < COUNT; ++i) > | ; On Sat, Apr 02, 200

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:10:42AM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >Memory bloat is a problem for embedded systems. Attitudes about just > >"buy > >another gigabyte" is why i use C for everything for speed, portability, > >compactness, and conciseness of design. > > But you are not compiling on the

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 08:29:48PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Joe Buck wrote: > > Unfortunately, where there is a good argument for not using empty loops > > as busy-waits, at one time it was documented GCC behavior that it would > > work, so we can

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:10:29PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Apr 2, 2005, at 6:12 PM, Stefan Strasser wrote: > > >gcc-Version 4.0.0 20041218 (experimental) > > > > this 4.0.0 is almost 4 months old. > That is not a far comparison as there was speedups after that > and other bug fixes.

Re: 4.0 regression: g++ class layout on PPC32 has changed

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:07:49PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > I've had a gcj bug report saying that some CNI code has ceased to work > on PPC 32, but I'm not sure that this is a gcj bug at all. The bug is > that gcj and g++ no longer have comptabile class layout -- members are > at different off

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 07:36:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 08:48 AM, Stefan Strasser wrote: > > > if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a _very_ > > > long ti

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 04:25:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote: > Well, yes and no - I sometimes think that gcc doesn't have *enough* knobs. Lots of knobs <=> inadequate testing and failures when users issue a combination of knob settings that have never been tested. That's why I find Gentoo rath

Re: call for testers!

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 > is on their > bootstrap. I'll check HP

HPUX/HPPA build broken (was Re: call for testers!)

I wrote: > >I'll check HP-UX/HPPA and let you know; since I didn't have a recent > >bootstrap of the trunk it will take a bit. On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 03:45:26PM -0700, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Even a relatively old bootstrap will do, assembler/linker > nondeterminism is what I'm really concern

Re: bootstrap compare failure in ada/targparm.o on i686-pc-linux-gnu?

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:06:42PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 07:21:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > Perhaps. But the fundamental problem is that we shouldn't be hashing > > on pointers, and tree-eh.c does just that for finally_tree and > > throw_stmt_table. > >

Re: Obsoleting c4x last minute for 4.0

Kazu Hirata wrote: > >I would like to propose that the c4x port be obsoleted for 4.0. > >... > > The primary reason is that the port doesn't build. On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:44:38PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I'm unpersuaded by the arguments later in the thread that we should keep > this po

Re: Illegal promotion of bool to int....

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 12:14:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am running up against an interesting compiler bug whereby a bool is > being promoted to an int. I found a Bugzilla entry and a message on the > mailing list that I thought was similar to what I am seeing: > ... > Does anyone hav

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 01:14:58PM -0400, Ray Holme wrote: > Perhaps this is why I use /bin/sh for all scripts I write - tis leaner and > meaner by far. But the implementation provided by several vendors (Solaris, AIX) is *extremely* slow for some operations, so slow as to add 24 hours to the time

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:25PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I don't know about the utility of example scripts in general, but for > this specific case, I strongly feel autoconf should automatically > detect this and reexec the configure script under /bin/ksh. Is there a specific test we can

Re: Does anyone use -fprofile-use with C++?

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 06:32:26PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:01 PM, Daniel Kegel wrote: > > >Judging by http://gcc.gnu.org/PR20815, I get the feeling > >not many people are using the -fprofile-generate > >and -fprofile-use options yet, at least not with > >C++, since it

Re: Semi-Latent Bug in tree vectorizer

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:52:02AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > There's a rather annoying bug in the vectorizer which can cause us to > > have SSA_NAMEs which are used, but never defined. > > > > Consider this testcase compiled with -msse2 -ftree-vectorize: > > > > typedef char achar __attrib

Re: GCC 3.4.3

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:20:47AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 09:05:17AM -0400, Ray Holme wrote: > > Many thanks to all for the lessons on how NOT to make things you don't > > want. > > > > After 56 hours teh full make bootstrap finished - make install failed > > mis

Re: Semi-Latent Bug in tree vectorizer

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:25:37PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 10:11:33AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > > The problem, then, is that there's no way for the user to specify > > that we have an array whose beginning has, say, 16-byte alignment, > >

Re: Major bootstrap time regression on March 30

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 07:36:17PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > [ tracking down sudden increase in bootstrap time ] > So just so we are clear on the state: > > Jim works on a machine: > > Sees no difference in compile times from 03-29 -> 04-01 > > Diego works on a machine > > Sees 50% differ

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 03:05:17PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from: > > /pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050410/ My first build result is at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00742.html However, the system info is wrong due to my error; it i

Re: inline-unit-growth trouble

On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:18:54PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 09:01 AM, Andreas Krebbel wrote: > >on S/390 we have currently a plenty of testsuite failures > >due to inlining effects. > > > >ld complains about testcases which try to link two files containing > >the s

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >