Reminder: if you need access to x86 machines to run your boring
batches or to test your software with GCC snapshots with even
more boring batches, the GCC compile farm is for you:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
<<
GCC Compile Farm Project
The GCC CompileFarm Project is seeking volunteers to
Reminder: if you need access to x86 machines to run your boring
batches or to test your software with GCC snapshots with even
more boring batches, the GCC compile farm is for you:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
<<
GCC Compile Farm Project
The GCC CompileFarm Project is seeking volunteers to
Excepted two machines I opened to change their disk, the nine GCC
Compile Farm bi-pentium III machines are reaching one year uptime today:
== gcc01 == 21:08:26 up 242 days
== gcc02 == 21:08:26 up 365 days
== gcc03 == 21:08:26 up 365 days
== gcc04 == 9:08PM up 365 days
== gcc05 == 21:08:27 up 365
On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 11:16 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 09:16:07PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > Excepted two machines I opened to change their disk, the nine GCC
> > Compile Farm bi-pentium III machines are reaching
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 22:27 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > I don't think -frisky is a good name for that option. A better name
> > would be -fstrict.
>
> Or -pedantic? ;-)
-pedantic-codegen
:)
Laurent
On Sun, 2006-12-31 at 12:04 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Duncan Sands wrote:
>
> > The C front-end performs this transformation too. I'm not claiming that the
> > back-end optimizers would actually do something sensible if the front-end
> > didn't transform this code (in fact they don't seem too)
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 22:59 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 01:49 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > It would be nice to have such a construct in GNU C, something that
> > could be used in a macro expansion, and would turn off _all_ warnings
> > for the code within the construct
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:36 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
>
> and its mirrors.
On a recent ubuntu x86_64 system, with c,ada,c++,fortran,java,objc:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00377.
Hi,
For easy testing I installed 8 GCC releases with all languages including
Ada on the Compile Farm machines:
* /n/b01/guerby/release/X.Y.Z/bin with X.Y.Z in 3.4.6, 4.0.0-4, 4.1.0-2
has the official GCC X.Y.Z release installed with all languages compiled
in, including Ada.
If you wish to get an
On Thu, 2007-04-12 at 16:00 +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> http://code.google.com/soc/gcc/about.html
>
> Best of luck with your projects!
For GSoC participants needing always on machines (for crontab jobs or
launching multiple compilations/tests at once or whatever), remember
that you can get
We're a bit "short" on the current CompileFarm machines,
we have 5x16GB + 4x32GB (and as shown below it tends to
be used, I have to ping users from time to time to get GB
back :).
There is enough cpu power in the farm to build and check a version for
each commit (all languages including Ada) on up
On Fri, 2007-04-20 at 19:28 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> > This seems unfortunate. I was hoping I might be able to turn on loop
> > unrolling for IA64 at -O2 to improve performance. I have only started
> > looking into this idea but it seems to help performance quite a bi
> > but also does not make anyone actually use the options. Nobody reads
> > the documention. Of course, this is a bit overstatement, but with a
> > few exceptions, people in general do not enable non-default flags.
>
> I don't think this is fair.
> Most people don't read the docs because they d
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 14:44 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 4/22/07, Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > but also does not make anyone actually use the options. Nobody reads
> > > > the documention. Of course, this is a bit overstatement,
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 15:22 +0200, Jan Hubicka 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?
>
> Well, th
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 14:57 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > Although you have listed it as "stage 2", I wish to commit the finished
> > portion as soon as possible during stage 1. I have maintainership authority
> > to do so. This will not interfere in any way with *any*
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 13:25 +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
> >People do break Ada bootstrap because they don't configure and test Ada,
> >they don't configure Ada because they complained about Ada build
> >machinery being non standard, delaying Ada build mac
On Sun, 2005-03-06 at 04:12 -0800, Bernd Trog wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2005, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > Bernd Trog wrote:
> > > according to the gnat ref. manual
> > >
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/Implementation-Defined-Characteristics.html
> > >
> > > Standard.Interger'Size is 32 bit for
(a)
real0m5.171s
user0m4.346s
sys 0m0.518s
(b)
Athlon64 3000+ (2.0 GHz s754), 1GB RAM, 200 GB disk, SuSE Linux 9.2
8 month old. Today's Paris street price about 500 euros w/o taxes
(c)
automatic seems better
Laurent
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 00:07 -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I'd appr
I've added my ACATS/bugzilla table into the the GCC wiki, if we find
something missing let me know.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ACATS
Laurent
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 11:52 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> && line not excessively big;
> The latter is a heuristic to avoid using up line number too greedily;
> I suspect it may not be an issue.
IIRC, current default max line length for Ada programs is 255, and 32767
for configuration p
Hi, fromm gcc-testresults here is where we stand on 4.0/Ada after
the tree-sra Ada patch. I'm looking for results for platforms where I
believe Ada could work:
powerpc-linux
powerpc-darwin
x86-cygwin (may be in -mno-cygwin too?)
sparc-solaris
So if you have access to one of these platforms, plea
On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 11:54 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > no FAIL:
> > sparc-linux
> > s390-linux
> > x86-linux
>
> sparc-sun-solaris is clean, for all supported versions of Solaris, except
> maybe 10.
Ok thanks for the information!
> > x86_64-linux
> > FAIL: cxa5012
>
> I think this one is
, 2005-04-09 at 10:51 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 09, 2005 at 12:18:09PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > Unfortunately this is a real core dump while running the test on my
> > machine (glibc-2.3.3-118 SuSE 9.2) at -O2 or -O0, and this does not
> > reprodu
On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 13:22 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Ok the bug is trivial once I peek into the core dump:
>
> No, you're missing it, I think. When you're in GDB, what it does is
> raises an explicit constraint error due to Int'Value, which is what's
> expected. However, for some reaso
On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 21:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY writes:
> > Hi, fromm gcc-testresults here is where we stand on 4.0/Ada after
> > the tree-sra Ada patch. I'm looking for results for platforms where I
> > believe Ada could work:
> &g
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 17:57 -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 17:34, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Another thing, has our library code base (libjava, libstdc++)
> > grown significantly lately?
>
> I was doing full builds, except for Ada. I should have mentioned that.
> Ada doesn't
On Sat, 2005-04-09 at 10:28 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> It contains this line:
>
> orig_lhs = TREE_OPERAND (orig_lhs, 1);
>
> But orig_lhs is a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR which has only one operand.
>
> That's certainly a typo. But I recall that that code has to go anyway.
I'm
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 01:13 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Should I replace ",1" by ",0" or is something more ambitious needed?
>
> I tried that on ia64, and the result was a miscompiled stage2 compile
c,ada show no unexpected failure on x86 and x86_64 (SuSE 9.2), great!
A minor thing:
I configured with c,ada only (no C++) on x86 and x86_64-linux and got
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00791.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00790.html
[...]
FYI, on SuSE 9.2, on x86 and x86_64 starting with the system Ada compiler
(3.3.3 based)
I get no such issue in configure:
checking whether we are using GNU C... yes
checking whether gcc accepts -g... yes
checking for gnatbind... gnatbind
checking whether compiler driver understands Ada... yes
che
Ada does not build on mainline right now, though it dies
much later than what you're seeing, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg00527.html
Laurent
On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 13:11 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing this? I see the same with either 3.3 or 3.4
> as the buil
I'm including the standard annotations, they have no standard
value but sometimes do help.
Laurent
C.6 Shared Variable Control
Dynamic Semantics
15For an atomic object (including an atomic component) all reads and
updates of the object as a whole are indivisibl
The minor "problem" is still there in RC2, I opened PR21094 about it:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21094
Laurent
> A minor thing:
>
> I configured with c,ada only (no C++) on x86 and x86_64-linux and got
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00791.html
> http://gcc.
c,ada are clean on x86 and x86_64 linux.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01311.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg01313.html
Laurent
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 09:45 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Some time ago, someone posted a patch which provided beginnings of a
> general-purpose Ada test suite infrastructure (in addition to the
> current ACATS tests, which cannot be used for regression tests). The
> patch was not integrated, and
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:39 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> I'll look at the DejaGnu aspects of the patch and comment on them, but
> someone involved with Ada should maintain it.
Sounds fair, but then don't hesitate to add comments in the patch
so dejagnu illiterates don't feel lost :).
Thanks for
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 23:35 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/
>
> As usual, please test -- by using exactly those tarballs, so that we can
> detect packging errors. Put problems into Bugzilla, and Cc: me. At
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 13:07 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On May 13, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > Diego,
> >
> > it looks like it's this change:
> >
> > +2005-05-10 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > +
> > + * tree-optimize.c (init_tree_optimization_passes): Re-organize
>
Ok for Ada on x86-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg00922.html
C still has one unexpected fail:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/va-arg-25.c execution, -Os
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 15:44 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 23:10 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>
> >> But even this were fixed, many users would still complain.
> >> That's why I think that the Linux kernel should set the CPU
> >> in double-precision mode, like some other OS's (MS Windows,
> >> *BSD) -- but this is o
On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:01 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> CodeSourcery struggles with exactly the same problem; we have worked
> hard to set up some test automation for our ARM builds, and it's working
> well, but we're not (yet!) as disciplined as we want to be about
> analyzing and fixing the
stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/
-B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install/install-20050616T132922/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long
-Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -Werror -fno-co
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 16:45 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Mattias Karlsson wrote:
>
> > Since the "gcc-is-buggy" solution of changing x87 rounding modes will:
> > 1) Be a lot of work.
> > 2) Cause a lot of regressions.
>
> To this you can add
>
>3) generate less efficient code
Changing the d
On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 17:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Changing the default rounding of the processor will make code less
> > efficient?
> Yes, if you have to change it backwards and forwards for float and
> double
Quite rare. Only usage I've seen is for tabulation when you want
to save stor
After recent fixes, the only patch left to be
able to build Ada on mainline is for the wrapv problems
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21959
(patch by Andreas Schwab). It works at least on x86 and x86_64-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg01590.html
http://gcc.gnu.o
Ada bootstraps fine without patch on x86-linux, however
on x86_64 bootstrap fail because of:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22212
The following patch is a workaround for it, it enables
a full bootstrap and only 2 additional FAIL in ACATS,
results here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testr
:51:26 - 1.104
+++ misc.c 29 Jun 2005 06:12:29 -
@@ -339,6 +339,8 @@
/* Uninitialized really means uninitialized in Ada. */
flag_zero_initialized_in_bss = 0;
+ flag_wrapv = 1;
+
return CL_Ada;
}
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 22:50 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
This is http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22212
and is the problem blocking Ada bootstrap on x86_64-linux,
it would be great to move forward on this.
Laurent
On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 18:18 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> This function generates RTL from an expression to see how many RTL ins
Yes I see this new form of failure on x86_64-linux too as of
LAST_UPDATED Tue Jul 5 21:38:08 UTC 2005
I don't use the wrapv patch, just the following patch on gnattools:
Index: Makefile.in
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gnattools/Makefi
4.0.1 builds fine on x86-linux and x86_64-linux, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00414.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00432.html
You might want to try the configure options I used
there (see end of the reports above).
Sincerely,
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-
pass
everywhere at -O0) works with -O2 -fno-tree-sra
x86_64 only:
20548: c52103x (run) segfault at runtime on x86_64 and hppa
Laurent
2005-07-12 Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR tree-optimization/22336
* function.c (re
Hi,
FSF France has received in donation 9 Dell poweredge 1550 bi processor
1U machines with one 18GB SCSI disk and 1GB RAM, processors total 19.5
GHz distributed as follows:
- 3 bi pentium III 1.25 GHz
- 6 bi pentium III 1.00 GHz
The machines are about four years old, so of course there may be
h
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 11:02 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> I'm proposing to automate gcc's bootstrap & regtest: for each mail
> sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED], if 'From' is in gcc-developpers and 'body'
> contains a patch against some branch (ie. if it fails to apply to a
> branch, just drop it and warn
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 08:53 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Looks good. I think it would be slightly more secure to have people
> > commit the patch with a unique name in some access-controlled CVS
> > (either some subdir of the GCC one or a new local one) than relying on
> > email "From" fields at
scripts on the machine then I'll ask.
I'm also all open to non Linux OS like the *BSD family, also subject
to volunteer effective availability (no issue with FSF France for
*BSD :).
Sincerely,
Laurent
On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 23:21 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FSF Fran
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 11:53 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I'm not saying that things aren't broken, just being very careful in the
> definition of what a "valid" value in an object is. The point is that these
> values are not "valid" (which is why 'Valid returns FALSE) and that the
> compiler (sp
Isn't it possible to attach some information on a comparison
statement that tells code generation never to never
optimize away this particular comparison even if it
seems to be able to prove it is always true or false?
(just like volatile does for memory read)
For code executed after this kind of
Here is the initial wiki page for the CompileFarm project:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
Feel free to add detailed proposals there.
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 13:01 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Thanks to all who proposed projects and volunteered, I've informed FSF
> Fran
A patch by Andrew Pinski is there:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
But review was negative, so it was not commited.
Hope this helps,
Laurent
PS: is there a PR for this one?
On Fri, 2005-08-19 at 15:16 -0700, Chris Douty wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> My last two attempts to buil
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 00:36 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> A patch by Andrew Pinski is there:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg01666.html
>
> But review was negative, so it was not commited.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Laurent
>
> PS: is there a P
20548 seems to be fixed on x86_64 (I've put it in WAITING for powerpc
and hppa where it was also reported), but two new regressions appeared,
those are probably unrelated to your patch:
23564: c52104f c52104h (run) missing check
23565: c32001e (run x86_64 only) inccorect array bounds
I didn't che
If we add a library function to handle this we might want to
add a GNU-style argument equivalent like
gcc --arguments-from-file=file
Which would be equivalent to:
gcc @file
May be some GNU tools already have standardized on a long
argument name for such a feature, but none came to my mind
(and
On Fri, 2005-08-26 at 10:21 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Anyway, my gcc docs only mention:
> >
> > --target-help
> > --help
> > --version
> > --param NAME=VALUE
>
> Yeah, it looks like the double dash long options got added without
> ever bein
FYI, this fixes both PR ada/23141 and ada/23142.
Laurent
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 10:27 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 09/05/05 17:39, Richard Kenner wrote:
>
> >Shouldn't the test be that both lhs_vr *and* vr_result are VR_RANGE?
> >
> >
> Yes, good catch. If that fixes your testcase, please
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:13 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Assuming that no critical problems emerge, I'll do the final release
> within the next week.
Looks good on x86-linux and x86_64-linux for Ada:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00691.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresult
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 09:41 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Thanks to all who tested GCC 4.0.2 RC1.
>
> GCC 4.0.2 RC2 is now available here:
> [...]
> Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
> pointing at the results.
Still ok for c,ada on x86 and x86_64-linux:
http
Zero ACATS fail on three platforms:
x86-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01292.html
x86_64-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01293.html
s390-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01257.html
Other platforms with one or few ACATS failur
The patch to restore Ada bootstrap is a one liner: just revert
the gimplify.c part of 2005-09-24 Richard Henderson's change
in your tree (see below).
I don't know what is the policy on patches that break Ada on x86-linux
(here by revealing a latent middle-end bug - but I think latent or not
policy
This restores bootstrap on x86 and x86_64-linux, thanks
for looking into this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01332.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01333.html
BTW, did you get a chance to look into:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24003
which i
Rainer tracing seems to show that strange thing happen to
Osint.Running_Program during elaboration of 4.0.x. We have:
package body Osint is
Running_Program : Program_Type := Unspecified;
...
procedure Set_Program (P : Program_Type) is
begin
...
Running_Program := P;
end Set_Prog
(I indeed forgot about the static model which is the default for GNAT)
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 08:37 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> [...] You can of course check the order of elaboration by
> looking at it. I would be surprised if there were a
> bug in the statid elab model for such a simple case,
> a
On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 09:39 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Actually, i missed that they are already open.
> The real problem here appears to be stuck rsync processes:
>
> All the rsync processes date from 11th Oct
> Sod it, I'm going to kill em
> I think they're all stuck
FYI, according to my l
On Thu, 2005-10-13 at 07:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Unless you're interested in Ada, I'd recommend trying with the GNU
> linker instead. I was getting good results with binutils 2.16 on 4.0
> at one stage, although I no longer have access to an IRIX system.
>
> (There's no intrinsic rea
Note that this correspond to the "not null" feature added to Ada 2006
in various places, including pointer type definitions:
type Ptr is not null access Integer;
You can also have a regular pointer type and subtype it
with not null, but I guess the Ada front-end introduces
a generated subtype:
On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 12:30 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Saturday 12 November 2005 12:24, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > Note that this correspond to the "not null" feature added to Ada 2006
> > in various places, including pointer type definitions:
> >
> >
On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 17:43 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have been trying to build sparc-rtems4.7 on the head using newlib's
> > head for a few days now. I have finally narrowed the behavior down.
> >
> > If I configure for sparc
After Eric commit for 24003, ACATS FAIL are down to eight
on x86 and x86_64-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00616.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-11/msg00615.html
Five PRs are covering those failures:
common x86 & x86_64
22333: (wrong-code) c34007p c34007r
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 17:59 -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 19:59, Jim Wilson wrote:
> > Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> s-auxdec.ads:286:13: alignment for "Aligned_Word" must be at least 4
> >> Any ideas?
> >
> > I'm guessing this is because ARM sets STRUCTURE_SIZE_BO
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 18:27 -0500, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2005, at 18:11, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > What about moving s-auxdec from ada/Makefile.rtl
> > GNATRTL_NONTASKING_OBJS
> > into EXTRA_GNATRTL_NONTASKING_OBJS so it can be set for VMS targets
> >
On Sun, 2005-11-13 at 17:55 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> There are other PR filed for ACATS code but with other flags than -O2,
> or on platforms with lots of failures (hppa, ia64).
After the latest commit, ia64-linux is now in the same shape Ada wise
than x86 & x86_64:
x86 &
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:40 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> A nightmare scenario is debugging the compiler when its behaviour
> changes due to using "-S". Assembly source is something that we
> maintainers use more than anyone else.
If we go the direct generation route, I think it would be more
effi
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 15:14 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> + No PR - The Ada tools mangle target names like arm-rtems4.7.
>Apparently they don't like the version part. Laurent is working on
>this.
To be accurate I promised to work on this once Paolo configure
patch is in, because I'm curr
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 12:15 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> arm-rtems4.7 does build C, C++, and Ada on the gcc SVN head. I have
> done no testing beyond that.
Is there a simulator for arm? Frederic do you have a testing
environment in mind? What "--enable-rtemsbsp=X" should I use?
I'm building u
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 14:10 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Then, I don't know if it would be legal to optimize
>
>struct r {
> unsigned int x : 7;
> volatile unsigned int y : 1;
>};
>
>struct r my_reg;
>
> So that my_reg.x is accessed with a non-volatile mem, and my_reg.y is
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:55 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> My feeling is that we should have such a suite. I'd favor a micro
> style, where we are measuring clock cycles (on machines that can
> expose them x86/v9), [...]
A while ago I looked at rdtsc on x86-linux, but I couldn't find a way,
other
The GCC CompileFarm machines are now online, many thanks to the
jexiste.org staff and to the FSF France staff for making this possible.
GCC developpers wishing to get ssh access should send me their
preferred login together with the line to add to their
$HOME/.ssh/authorized_keys to allow for pass
Hi, I have updated the wiki with all current information:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
As indicated on the wiki:
If you are a GCC developper and want access to the compileFarm for GCC
development and testing, or if you are a free software developper
wishing to set up automated testing of
I see the same failure on x86-linux both 4.1 and trunk as of revision
108478 (was working on trunk as of 108381). x86_64-linux is fine on both
branches at the same revision.
Probably:
2005-12-13 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR debug/25023
PR target/25293
* expr.c (
I'll leaving home for the datacenter, the machines will reboot within
the next two hours.
I'll setup the account for people who requested them by email tonight.
Laurent
dience at large we'll create a separate mailing
list. Think of updating the wiki with your proposals
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
More in a few hours after work.
Laurent
On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 20:23 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> I'll leaving home for the datacenter, the machi
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 14:11 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Hi, we lost just one disk during transportation.
>
> If you know someone who has a spare X GB SCSI disk available for
> donation, please contact me. Otherwise I'll just buy one :).
Sebastian Pop kindly proposed a disk,
Note: I'll be offline starting friday and up to monday, so if
you want to start hacking on the machines over the week-end
please send me your prefered UNIX and public key AS ATTACHMENT (not
inline) in the next 12 hours.
On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 14:28 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Do they have acce
I confirm the Ada bootstrap failure on x86-linux, I opened:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25436
With a backtrace and various print suggested by Steven and
last known working revision.
Laurent
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 07:36 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On We
Hi Rainer, this is PR24994:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24994
And is under investigation:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-12/msg01756.html
Laurent
On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 16:52 +0100, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bootstrap fai
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 12:42 -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-02 at 19:31 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > Hi Rainer, this is PR24994:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24994
> >
> > And is under investigation:
> >
> &
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 20:47 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Actually, looking more closely, the libiberty.a is the only one installed
> > that way (from the gcc sources). All others (for example libstdc++.a) seem
> > to follow standard convention (32 bit in lib, 64 bit in lib/sparcv9).
> > Hmmm...
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 15:54 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Quick poll: who does configure for some system dir when doing
> development?
>
> I do. Doesn't mean I have to keep doing it that way, of course, but that's
> not what you asked.
I assume linux (and GCC) distributors also do it
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 16:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 09:26:11PM +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 20:47 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > > Actually, looking more closely, the libiberty.a is the only one
> > >
On Tue, 2006-01-03 at 16:41 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> DESTDIR support (which we already have, and people use constantly)
> allows us to install a tree somewhere different than its configured
> --prefix. Relocatable toolchains (ditto) allow the toolchain to work
> when run from an address d
1 - 100 of 312 matches
Mail list logo
