Re: crtstuff.c:300: error

Mohammad Katmawi writes: > I have gcc-4.6.1. Now I am trying to install gcc-3.4.6 for sake of msp430x. I > received many errors. The last one was following: This message is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org, which is about the development of GCC itself. It would be appropria

Re: "self" keyword

"Rick C. Hodgin" writes: > I was thinking C and C++. > > int myclass::foo(int a) > { > // recursion > self(a + 1); > } > > Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't it be accepted back into mainline? In general these days GCC discourages language extensions. They would have to have a compelli

Re: unrecognizable insn.

Feng LI writes: > I'm trying to expand a builtin functions into assembles, with > processing a little bit for the operands. > > Like for the builtin function: > tcreate (arg0, arg1, arg2) > I'm trying to generate the assemble code (pseudo): > TCREATE arg0<<32|arg1, arg2 > > but I got the followin

Re: a fork of gcc is sold for $26k?

Arch hvv writes: > Have anybody inspected it? Is GPL violated in this case or not (e.g. > do they provide all patches they've made to gcc)? If they provide the source code to anybody who purchases their package, then they are doing nothing wrong according to the GPL. I don't know whether they d

Re: Local Variables

Terry writes: > Posting here rather than gcc.help since I consider this behaviour to > be a bug. The right place is still gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. That is the mailing list for all discussions about using GCC, as opposed to discussions about how to change GCC. > When I step through the function "r

Re: Why not remove entry for stripped function in ELF .debug_info section

Terry Guo writes: > But when check .debug_info section of .out file, I can still see entry > for this deadstripped function: I have two things to say about this message. First, this message is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org, which is for discussion related to the developme

Re: multilib build problem with default options

"Steve Ellcey " writes: > I am building a multilib mips compiler using '--with-synci' on the > configure line. This means that gcc will pass the '-msynci' option > to cc1 by default. The problem occurs when one of my multilib > targets (like -mips32) does not support synci. This means that >

Re: Regarding GCC Optimization flags and a customized profiler

Parang Saraf writes: > Expected Solution: 1. If you can point me to resources where I can > find more in-depth information about the optimization flags. Just the source code, unfortunately. At least it's complete. Ian

Re: Gcc testsuite, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and a new libgcc_s that is incompatible with the host libc

Andrew Haley writes: > On 06/22/2012 11:35 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote: >> Firstly, has anyone else encountered this or otherwise given it any >> thought? And secondly, any hints for practical fixes? > > What you effectively seem to be building is a cross-compiler from > x86-glibc-A to x86-glibc-B.

Re: Gcc testsuite, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and a new libgcc_s that is incompatible with the host libc

Andrew Haley writes: > On 06/22/2012 03:27 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Andrew Haley writes: >> >>> On 06/22/2012 11:35 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote: >>>> Firstly, has anyone else encountered this or otherwise given it any >>>> thought? And secon

Re: Code optimization: warning for code that hangs

"Peter A. Felvegi" writes: > My question is: wouldn't it be possible to print a warning when a jmp > to itself or trivial infinite recursion is generated? The code > compiled fine w/ -Wall -Wextra -Werror w/ 4.6 and 4.7. This question is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org, whic

Re: Regression: incorrect line numbers in debug info since 4.5+

"Peter A. Felvegi" writes: > I found out while single stepping a new template function in gdb that > gcc generates bad/inaccurate line numbers in the debug > info. Thanks for reporting this. In the future, please send messages like this to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org, not gcc@gcc.gnu.org. Thanks. >

Re: ARM: gcc generates two identical strd instructions to store 8 bytes

Nathanaël Prémillieu writes: > I do not ask for help, I just want to highlight what seems to me a > strange behavior. The mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for discussion of the development of GCC itself. Discussion of GCC behaviour, including questions about optimizations and possible bugs, is b

Re: GCC Cauldron: Notes from the C++ ABI BOF

My version of Cary's notes (I just wrote this on my Google+ stream): We had a useful discussion about C++11 ABI issues at the GNU Tools Cauldron (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012). The approach will be shaped over time, but the general idea is as follows. We will modify g++ to support a type

Re: Ad-hoc notes from the "pending patches" BOF at the GNU tools cauldron.

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On a whim I hosted a BOF at the GNU tools cauldron yesterday, > titled "pending patches" (no compliance with RFC5434 intended). Thanks for the notes. I want to add one point. There are a number of useful tools that we can imagine. How

Re: GCC internal API access in plugin

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:54 PM, mahdi hamzeh wrote: > > I am developing a new modulo scheduling technique in gcc 4.7.0. and I > would like to implement it as a plugin for now. I found > "sms_schedule" which does swing modulo scheduling and I think this > function matches well with what I am going

Re: bootstrap fails using default c++ mode in stage 2 and 3 for native x86_64-w64-mingw32

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Rainer Emrich wrote: > > PR 53912 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53912 shows the failures > in stage 2 for gcc-4.8.0. Most are of the form "error: cast from 'void*' to > 'long int' loses precision" or similar. > > AFAIK a switch to c++ mode is planned

Re: [Bug bootstrap/53912] [4.7/4.8 Regression] bootstrap fails using default c++ mode in stage 2 and 3 for native x86_64-w64-mingw32

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Rainer Emrich wrote: > ../../../src/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/pointer-set.c: In function 'size_t hash1(const > void*, > long unsigned int, long unsigned int)': > ../../../src/gcc-4.8.0/gcc/pointer-set.c:67:32: error: cast from 'const void*' > to 'long unsigned int' loses pre

Re: Double word left shift optimisation

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Jon Beniston wrote: > > I'd like to try to optimise double word left shifts of sign/zero extended > operands if a widening multiply instruction is available. For the following > code: > > long long f(long a, long b) > { > return (long long)a << b; > } > > ARM, MI

Re: Shared librares dependency at compile time

On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM, LiLy wrote: > > I have two existing shared libraries liba.so, libb.so. > Liba.so depends on libb.so(liba.so is dynamically linked with libb.so > ). Now I want to compile an application which uses both liba.so and > libb.so. Please never send e-mail to both gcc

Re: gcc 4.6.1 double to long cast on 32bit systems

On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Karsten Ahnert wrote: > > I am new to this list. If this is not the correct place for posting the > question I apologize for any inconvenience. This question should have gone to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. Please take any followups to gcc-help. Thanks. > The following

Re: Copyright assignment forms

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > Could someone please send me the copyright assignment forms for single > contributions and for all future contributions? Sent off-list. (FYI for others: we generally send off-list because there are several forms, and us sending the form m

Re: Bug for each patch

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > > Can someone please clarify some policies with GCC contribution. If I have a > patch with a GCC enhancement, do I need to obtain a bug report for it and > then submit the patch or I can submit a patch to the patch mailing list > without open

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Perry Smith wrote: > > I hope I've researched this enough to ask decent questions. > > I'm running gcc 4.5.2. AIX 6.1 TL07 SP03. > > The essence of the problem is when a shared library is loaded, sometimes > atexit is called with a pointer to a destructor. This c

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Perry Smith wrote: > > Part of my confusion / concern is "why have two methods?" > Does the spec say that dtors much be called at different times? The use of _GLOBAL_FD in GCC is AIX-specific, and appears to be required to get destructors in shared libraries to run

Re: What is the meaning of mode on a SET

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > There are ~1000 uses of gen_rtx_SET in gcc, excluding generated files. > The vast majority generate a SET with VOIDmode, but a few (less than > 100) use a non-VOIDmode SET. > > What is the meaning of the mode on a SET? I do not recall any

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Perry Smith wrote: > > Not sure why this thread died. I've been looking at the code trying to gain > the courage to try and implement the changes I suggested but was > also waiting to hear back from others. Sorry, I'm not sure what you are waiting to hear. Sounds

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > The __cxa_guard stuff is part of the Itanium C++ ABI, see > http://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html#once-ctor (or a > slightly newer version at http://www.swag.uwaterloo.ca/asx/ABI.html) > > Neither of those is the official ve

Re: libgfortran.so and libgfortra.a statically link program

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:49 PM, benzhi cao wrote: > Hi, > recently I use the gcc 4.4 to compile fortran programs.and then > I use ld to link these programs . Please never send messages to both gcc@gcc.gnu.org and gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org. This message is appropriate for gcc-help; it is not app

Re: The Extension to ELF

On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Fumiaki Isoya wrote: >> I suspect we should make decision of solving all symbols by the >> calculation. That is, all symbols should be solved by the >> calculation of the information that stored in Reverse Polish which >> consists of constants, other symbols, and

Re: The Extension to ELF

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > >> [...] >> ELF is designed to permit fast program loading at runtime, and to >> permit fast linking. Changing symbol and relocation values to take >> general expre

Re: New GCC takes 19x as long to compile my program (compared to old GCC), plus void** patch suggestion

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Elmar Krieger wrote: >> Not at all high. See Type-Based Alias Analysis >> >> for one reason. > > Thanks, I read the article, but didn't really see how forbidding a function > with argument void** to

Re: 50% slowdown with LTO

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:27 AM, wrote: > I'm not sure what LTO is supposed to do -- the documentation is not exactly > clear. But I assumed it should make things faster and/or smaller. > > So I tried using it on an application -- a processor emulator, CPU intensive > code, a lot of 64 bit int

Re: x86_64 unwinder in libgcc_s

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Fumiaki Isoya wrote: > > I know nothing about what IP, RA, CFA is, but how about asking Richard > Stallman ? He will probably answer where to write it. RMS hasn't worked on GCC since 1991. He would just refer the question back here. Ian

Re: x86_64 unwinder in libgcc_s

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Dmitri Shubin wrote: > On 14.08.2012 14:18, Andrew Haley wrote: > > My question was: why I get wrong (from my pov) CFA value from GCC unwinder. > > I rewritten my small test. > As one can see here in foo() I placed constant 0x1020304050 right after > return addres

Re: EXTRA_TARGET_FLAGS ?

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruce Korb wrote: > From Makefile.tpl: > > EXTRA_TARGET_FLAGS = \ > 'AR=$$(AR_FOR_TARGET)' \ > 'AS=$(COMPILER_AS_FOR_TARGET)' \ > 'CC=$$(CC_FOR_TARGET) $$(XGCC_FLAGS_FOR_TARGET) $$(TFLAGS)' \ > 'CFLAGS=$$(CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET)' \ >

Re: x86_64 unwinder in libgcc_s

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Dmitri Shubin wrote: > On 14.08.2012 17:58, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> unwinder is right and libgcc_s one is wrong. >> I think the definition of _Unwind_GetCFA is ambiguous. It says "the >> value of %rsp at the call site

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Perry Smith wrote: > > I'm on gcc 4.5.2. I started with a fresh build tree. I'm passing in > --enable-__cxa_atexit: > > configure \ > "--with-gmp=${PUBLIC_BASE}" \ > "--with-mpfr=${PUBLIC_BASE}" \ > "--with-mpc=${PUBLIC_BASE}" \ > "--disable-nls

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > Look closely at the output from gcc/configure. Does it include the > line "__cxa_atexit can't be enabled on this target"? That will be > displayed if the configure script determines that your target does n

Re: -debug to collect2

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Perry Smith wrote: > Is there a way to get the -debug flag from the g++ command line to collect2? -Wl,-debug Ian

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Perry Smith wrote: > > collect2 is dying when it calls ld for the first time because __dso_handle is > not defined. It is being reference from the calls to __cxa_atexit. So, create another stub, and pass it into the first link. Ian

Re: Optimising/cleaning-up GSOC summary. What was done, future directions.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote: > > In a very brief summary, I achieved a few things this summer: Ported patches > from last year - some made it to mainline, extended old patches and > resubmitted them, wrote new but mostly small clean-ups/speed-ups.k Thanks for all y

Re: Question: at which version gcc started supporting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE for c++ files?

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Oleg Pekar (olpekar) wrote: > > I'm using gcc 4.1.2, it supports -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE option for c files but not > for c++. I'm looking for gcc version number where support for this option in > c++ files was added. I'm not sure how to answer your question, because

Re: Question: at which version gcc started supporting -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE for c++ files?

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Oleg Pekar (olpekar) wrote: >>On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Oleg Pekar (olpekar) >>wrote: >>> I'm using gcc 4.1.2, it supports -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE option for c files but >>> not for c++. I'm looking for gcc version number where support for this >>> option in

Re: Using C++ - Problem with

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Endo wrote: > > I'm currently playing around with an RTL pass and started using C++. > When including I get the following: > > /usr/include/c++/4.6/cstdlib:76:8: error: attempt to use poisoned > "calloc" > /usr/include/c++/4.6/cstdlib:83:8: error: attempt to

Re: [wwwdocs] Update links to C++ ABI (was: at exit alternative for AIX)

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> The official link at http://codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/ (note trailing >> slash) still works. > > It used to be http://sourcery.mentor.com/public/cxx-abi/ as of lately, &

Re: C++ conversion? Why still .c (not .cc) files and CC (not CXX) in Makefile.in?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > Sorry for such a stupid question, but assuming that the GCC trunk (e.g. svn > rev 190745) > did already switch (during my holidays, so I did not follow that) to C++ > per http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-08/msg00165.html message, why

Re: C++ conversion? Why still .c (not .cc) files and CC (not CXX) in Makefile.in?

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:45 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> > Or do we have a rule than any file using C++ specific feature should >> > be renamed from *.c to *.cc at the moment the C++ feature goes inside? >> &g

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> Does this seem like something we could usefully add to GCC? Does >> anybody see any big problems with it? > > Does it work without unwind tables? I suspe

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I've spent the last couple of days working on a stack backtrace library. >> >> It uses the GCC unwind interface to collect a stack trace, and parses

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Paweł Sikora wrote: > On Wednesday 29 of August 2012 00:22:55 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> I've spent the last couple of days working on a stack backtrace library. >> >> It uses the GCC unwind interface to collect a stack trace, and parses

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> I believe the unwinder proper is async signal safe--it just uses >> _Unwind_Backtrace. >> >> The DWARF reader calls malloc and is therefore not

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Paweł Sikora wrote: > On Wednesday 29 of August 2012 11:37:07 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Paweł Sikora wrote: >> > On Wednesday 29 of August 2012 00:22:55 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> I've spent

Re: detecting if cross-compiler (in plugin)?

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > What is the simplest way, for a plugin (and also for a GCC branch), > to detect if the compiler is straight or not (i.e. cross, that is > target & host are different, or even canadian-cross). > > I was thinking of some macro in auto-

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/29/2012 09:22 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> It uses the GCC unwind interface to collect a stack trace, and parses >> DWARF debug info to get file/line/function information. (Of course it's >> sil

Re: print operand modifiers in the manual

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > Where in the manual are the machine specific print operand modifiers > documented? I've looked around, and just can seem to find them; surely, I > can't be the first to document such a modifier. To the best of my knowledge they are not docum

Re: contrib/config-list.mk

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > The contrib/config-list.mk tool appears to be suffering from bitrot. > The make failures for a limited subset of configurations consisted > exclusively of: > > cc1: warnings being treated as errors > ../../../../gcc/fixincludes/server.c: In

Re: GCC stack backtraces

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu Aug 30 16:18:47 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >> Diego already loves it! > > > Indeed I do! > > I'm making changes in VEC that will benefit from this. I am currently > keeping the VEC_* macros so that I can pass __FUNCTION__, __LINE__

Compiler crash with block numbers

Hi Dehao, I suspect that your recent patch changing block handling has broken bootstrap with --enable-languages=go. I reduced the test case to this C++ code: #include std::string f(bool is_string, bool is_constant) { if (is_string) { std::string left_string; std::string right_

Re: Compiler crash with block numbers

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote: > The bug is in tree-eh.c. IS_UNKNOWN_LOCATION is mistakenly used, thus > the block info for a call stmt is cleared. > > A patch to fix the problem is atached: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > tree-eh.c (lower_try_finally_dup_block): Use correct way

Re: Compiler crash with block numbers

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Dehao Chen wrote: > > gcc/ChangeLog: > tree-eh.c (lower_try_finally_dup_block): Use correct way to > check unknown location. While you think about my questions, let's fix the bootstrap. This patch is OK if it passes bootstrap and a gcc and libstdc++ test

Steering Committee: I propose Cary Coutant as DWARF maintainer

I propose that Cary Coutant become an additional DWARF maintainer, along with Jason. Cary has been on the DWARF working group for many years and is very familiar with the format. He has written several patches for GCC's DWARF code. He's been an extensive contributor to the gold linker. I sugge

Re: Question about insn predicates and constraints

On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > m68k.md contains the following insn: > > (define_insn "" > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=&d") > (zero_extract:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "register_operand" "do") > (match_operand:SI 2 "cons

Re: IRA subregs playing badly with REG_EQUIV (Was: Reload reloading outdated values ?)

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Frederic Riss wrote: > Thanks to the help of segher and iant on IRC (thanks again!), I > narrowed my problem down to something I can fully understand and > explain (well I hope). > > There is a bad interaction between the IRA handling of subregs and > reload's use o

Re: libbacktrace and darwin

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >Is libbacktrace currently functional in gcc trunk and is it expected > to function on darwin? While I could understand it not working on installed > binaries of FSF gcc that were stripped, I would think it should work for > make check in the

Re: Error reporting functions

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > This question is mainly for some future submission. Am I allowed to > use "fatal_error (..)"? Mainly, I want to use it in cases where I want to say > "if this error has occurred, I see no reason to go forward with compilation." Yo

Re: libbacktrace and darwin

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > So I take it that libbacktrace doesn't work with the separate DWARF > debuginfo as shipped by all Linux distributions either? That does not work at present. I doubt it's difficult. Ian

Re: Proposing switch -fsmart-pointers

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 9:08 AM, _ wrote: > > I thing it would be best to implement it as compiller switch -fsmart-pointers > not requiring scope object and derive statement for objects. ie we > need equal flexibility and freedom like have today with static objects Experience shows us that program

Re: Instability in successive builds of fortran mod files with f951

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote: > > I've looked at fortran/module.c and at libgomp/omp_lib.mod, and this > is not a bug. This isn't particularly helpful, but, based on the rest of your description, this is a bug. The compiler should never depend on the order of pointer valu

Re: thumb2 support

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Grant wrote: > Hello, I'm working with the BeagleBone and gcc-4.5.4 on Gentoo. If I > try to compile the 3.6 kernel with CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL, I get: > > arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S:127: Error: selected processor does > not support requested special purpose re

Re: thumb2 support

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Grant wrote: >>> Hello, I'm working with the BeagleBone and gcc-4.5.4 on Gentoo. If I >>> try to compile the 3.6 kernel with CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL, I get: >>> >>> arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S:127: Error: selected processor does >>> not support requested special

Re: Question about memory allocation in ifcvt.c

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > Maybe Ian can mention why he used alloca there instead of xmalloc. It was a long time ago, but I expect it was just because alloca is usually fine for memory that has to live for just a single function. As a single-threaded program, GCC do

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > That PR now has a link to a mocked up bugzilla page: > http://www.kayari.plus.com/gcc/enter_bug.cgi-1.html which I think > would be a significant improvement, without getting in the way or > being an eyesore. > > Do any other maintainers

Re: Inconsistency between code and docs

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Paulo Matos wrote: > > I have found a strange inconsistency between code and docs for > TARGET_ASM_NAMED_SECTION. > > Docs say > (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.1/gccint/File-Framework.html#index-TARGET_005fASM_005fNAMED_005fSECTION-4472): > " If decl is n

Re: Build/Makefile question

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Caroline Tice wrote: > > I am working on a patch (which I hope to be able to submit in the next > few days), and I have run into a snag that I am hoping someone can > help me with. > > As part of this patch, I am trying to build two new *.a (static > archive) libr

Re: Build/Makefile question

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Caroline Tice wrote: > Ok, here are the patches for the Makefile.am and Makefile.in files. I > am also having trouble with the following issue: I need to make sure > that one of the new libraries is linked in with libstdc++ when > libstdc++ gets built. I have no

Re: Build/Makefile question

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Caroline Tice wrote: > Ian Tayler (in private communication) asked that I get the part of the > build log that shows the .so and .a files being built and send it to > the list. Here it is. I see the problem. libstdc++/libsupc++/Makefile.am overrides the default

Re: add .cc files to libgcc.a

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Perry Smith wrote: > > I'm sure they could be rewritten in C. GNUs libc choose to do them in C++ > probably because C++ just gives a nicer way to do things. In the GNU libc __cxa_atexit and __cxa_finalize are written in C, not C++. We should not add C++ code to

Re: Build/Makefile question

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Caroline Tice wrote: > > Actually, I did have to edit the Makefile.in slightly. When I > generate it with automake, it automatically adds the lines: > > libvtv_init_la_LIBADD = > libvtv_init_la_SOURCES = libvtv_init.c > libvtv_init_la_OBJECTS = libvtv_init.lo > l

Re: gcc-4.8-20121028 array bound check

On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:56 AM, nat...@t-online.de wrote: > I find this array bound check too hard: Please file a bug report. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ Thanks. Ian

Re: calculation of pi

On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars wrote: > > I have been writing this piece of example code, but it seems that someone > has been modifying the compiler in the meantime such that arguments are now > passed in xmm registers instead of over the stack. Also the npx top of stack > pointer i

Re: calculation of pi

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mischa Baars wrote: > On 11/02/2012 07:11 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Mischa Baars >> wrote: >>> >>> I have been writing this piece of example code, but it seems that someone >

Re: calculation of pi

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Mischa Baars wrote: > On 11/04/2012 02:45 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> There is no "original." The 32-bit and 64-bit ABIs are different. >> The 64-bit ABI has always passed arguments in registers. There is no >> option

Re: Using -ffunction-sections and -p

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > >Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a > warning. I ran into this problem when compiling the kernel. This is > discussed in this thread: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-11/msg00128.html > > Ian's reply

Re: a question for the c/c++ front end / standards people.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > > The question is why is having a case label of 256 on a unsigned char switch > legal? Are you asking why it is valid in the C language? Or are you asking why it is valid in GIMPLE? I guess the first question is fairly obvious so you are

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote: >> >> Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of >> reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in >> single digits! > > (see ht

Re: What is wrong in this code?

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Angelo Graziosi wrote: > > $ cat foo01.cc > #include "foo.hh" > > MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_TYPES > > $ cat foo02.cc > #include "foo.hh" > > MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_TYPES > > $ cat foo.hh > > #define MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE(g) g(int) > > #define MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_BASE(type) \

-fPIC -fPIE

Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE. Unfortunately, -fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE. It seems to me that, as is usual with conflicting options, we should use the one that appears last on the command line. Do we have an existing mechanism in options processing for o

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 7:00 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE. Unfortunately, >> -fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE. It seems to me that, >> as is usual with co

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On 13/11/12 14:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> Currently -fPIC -fPIE seems to be the same as -fPIE. Unfortunately, >> -fPIE -fPIC also seems to be the same as -fPIE. It seems to me that, >> as is usual w

Re: Using -ffunction-sections and -p

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Sriraman Tallam wrote: >>> >>>Currently, using -ffunction-sections and -p together results in a >>> w

Re: Using -ffunction-sections and -p

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 11/14/2012 01:00 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> >> Given that nobody has stepped forward to test it, let's just remove >> the code and see if anybody complains. I'll approve the patch unless >> somebod

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > My strong belief is that a compiler project as gigantic as GCC needs some kind > of garbage collection. I suspect that is correct, especially given the way the compiler is currently implemented. But I also suspect that we could use

Re: Unifying the GCC Debugging Interface

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 3:18 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >> And, as a side note, highly formatted output generally is not >> much better than printf. For any text that needs to be localized, >> I recommend that we stick with what we have

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 14/11/2012 15:27, Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto: >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote: >>> On 13/11/12 14:56, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>>> >>>> Currently -fPIC -fPIE see

Re: RFC - Initial planning for next Cauldron workshop

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > Ian and I have started thinking about the next Cauldron. This > time, we are thinking of organizing it in Mountain View, at > Google's headquarters. In case it's not obvious, this is Mountain View, California, USA. > - Dates: We are looki

Re: -fPIC -fPIE

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> The main advantage is that you can compile a program with CFLAGS="-O2 -g >>> -fPIE", and libtool's adding of -fPIC for shared libraries will wo

Re: Could we start accepting rich-text postings on the gcc lists?

Diego Novillo writes: > Sure. First I wanted to find out whether this requirement is just a > technical limitation with our mailing list software. It is not a technical limitation. We explicitly reject HTML e-mail. We could accept it. As Jonathan pointed out, accepting HTML e-mail and then d

Re: MCSoC2013: to enhance embedded Linux for many-core system

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:00 AM, ETANI NORIKO wrote: > > We have been developing many-core system in a program of“Extremely Low-power > Circuits and Systems (Green IT Project)”sponsored by New Energy and > Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) which is one of > National Project

Re: How to write an array var into .s file without null-terminator

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Dmitry Mikushin wrote: > > We are trying to embed a raw vector of chars into .s file using the > following code: > > tree index_type = build_index_type(size_int(moduleBitcode.size())); > tree const_char_type = build_qualified_type( > uns

<    21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   >