On Mar 24, 2005, at 10:32 AM, Galli Andrea wrote:
only one question please, gcc can compile cobol source? (procobol)
You know, there is this thing called google. It is wonderful, you
can type http://www.google.com into your favorite web browser, and
the type GNU cobol and then return, and it w
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 08:55 AM, anderson shin wrote:
However we always respect an opinion of the GNU. So we will follow
your decision and we hope our suggestion will be accepted.
Mostly, this is off-topic for this list. gnu.misc.discuss is the
canonical place for such discussions. I'll
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
If you run 'make check' after --enable-mapped-location (even
just --enable-languages=c) you'll find some apparant regressions.
They aren't real regressions - it's just now we now get column numbers
in some of the diagnostic messages, and t
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
Now I'm willing to fix those tests by adding -fno-show-column where
necessary
Ick. I favor adding it unconditionally to compile lines over this.
See -fmessage-length code (gcc/testsuite/lib/g++.exp) for hints. And
even that, I'm not s
On Sunday, March 27, 2005, at 09:31 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Fixed with this
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02450.html
Please try again and let me know.
A quick check of build's libiberty, seems to build for me now on
darwin8.
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 ?
The canonical method I use is to delete all aspects of the program that
don't influence the bug, comments, unused/unneeded fu
On Mar 28, 2005, at 12:12 PM, Christian Joensson wrote:
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre)
sun4u:
I get these failures and just would like to ping for any ideas what
might be wrong...
FAIL: gcc.dg/pch/static-1.c -O0 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: gcc.dg/pch/static-
On Mar 29, 2005, at 7:06 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
They are going to have to show that they had on idea this would
happen, which is
somewhat difficult.
IE if we added a very large warning to the submission page that said
"PLEASE NOTE: BY SUBMITTING A TESTCASE
I suspect we could put a description
On Mar 30, 2005, at 11:23 AM, Toon Moene wrote:
The question is: is the total of these testcases (from one source)
within that limit ...
[ recalling from memory of past talks with FSF legal ] By submitting
a testcase to the FSF, the author extends rights to the FSF to
republish the testcase,
On Mar 30, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
The relocation entry generated for this insn look like
symbol + addend.
The resultant value is beoyond the relocation size,
and results into relocation overflow.
Why is this not a bug in your reloc code in the assembler, OMF?
On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin.
It fails in stage1.
I can see the problem also... :-(
I doubt if the person that broke it knows about it. It was working
just a short time ago (beginning of the week?).
I
On Thursday, March 31, 2005, at 10:38 PM, GOEBAX wrote:
my project is that Connect to Gcc's front-end and My back-end
We generally don't support this concept. We'd rather you enhance and
extend gcc's back end. Because of this, this is beyond the scope of
this list.
On topic for this list, w
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 time swapping
Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
Now, having said that, we do believe that it would make for interesting
research to try le
On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Kelly Murphy wrote:
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 access
hardware be unoptimized. (We found that the optimization did some
write reordering that the hardware
On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:13 AM, François Mainguy wrote:
Bonjour – I own a Mac OS X 10.3.8 loaded with gcc 3.3 on it. I’d like
to add a gcc target so that I can also cross-compile for PowerPC 405
core CPU (as featured in a Xilinx Virtex-2 Pro FPGA). I know I
need to
download something from GCC webs
On Apr 4, 2005, at 11:46 PM, feng qiu wrote:
-fpack-struct and #pragma pack(2) are contraditctory instructions.
Yup.
And it seems to be never the intent to allow both.
Seems kinda strong. I'd argue that #pragma's override what is on the
command line. This is I think a change from status quo, bu
On Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 09:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Any idea about how to set the options of gcc to produce a static
linked elf with
customized base addr? I've googled, but found nothing worth:(
Wrong list.
Hint, go read the _linker_ documentation. The usual linker is part of
bi
On Thursday, April 7, 2005, at 09:12 AM, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Is there an option(compile/build time?) to tell GCC to use as few
registers as possible?
There's always the manual:
@item [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@opindex ffixed
Treat the register named @var{reg} as a fixed register; generated code
should ne
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:58 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Might I refer you to Mike Stump's answer regarding swap :)
I haven't seen it.
It was basically 'get more memory'.
Actually, an expanded version of it would be:
If gcc swaps, you're in serious trouble, gcc won't perform very well
well when it s
On Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 06:38 AM, Karel Gardas wrote:
Especially: ``Currently gcc takes a cache miss every 20 instructions,
or
some ungodly number, and that really saps performance.''
but I don't know if this is just an 1st April fool joke
Nope, no joke. The exact number will vary from m
On Monday, April 11, 2005, at 07:47 PM, zouq wrote:
i want very much to learn more about the parse tree in gcc.
tree.def is fairly dense and contains many of the details about trees.
Have you read that?
can some one show me some way to learn it a little easier,
i have tried to debug it, but the
On Apr 12, 2005, at 12:59 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
Either cachegrind is wrong, or gcc gets much better from that time?
Or do
I interpret cachegrind provided data in the wrong way? What do you
think
about it?
Or you're comparing x86 to power, and noticing that the x86 has to
execute way more da
On Apr 13, 2005, at 1:30 AM, thanh tuan wrote:
I am a student, and I am studying to build an ANSI C compiler into
ASM.
I know, you can download gcc and then do configure && make CFLAGS=-
save-temps. This will give you asm for an ANSI C compiler. :-)
[ wrong list, please use gcc-help instead. ]
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Templates are a no-go for a well known and well defined subset for C++
for embedded programming known commonly as well embedded C++.
My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you? Hint, it was is,
and always will be a joke.
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Embedded C++ was a mistake, alas a mistake that seems to last.
No, there are just confused people in the world that think that it is
relevant because they just don't know better, treat the as you'd treat
a person that talks about a
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 09:55 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
That only works if the notion of switchable rounding mode exists. It
doesn't on VAX, PDP-11, PDP-10, ...
What, you mean VAX isn't turing complete? :-)
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 09:50 PM, Douglas Charles wrote:
What is the status of Objective-C++ support in mainline GCC? Ziemowit
Laski was
working on integrating such support late last year, but has Apple
since halted
such integration efforts?
I don't believe anyone is working on it at the
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 same function in .gnu.linkonce sections but with different code
sizes.
This is
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
Is it really the job of the linker to choose between different
implementations of a function?
Yes. Why do you ask?
It seems to me that this might lead to very, very difficult to track
down bugs
Nope. All those bugs are tr
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 01:49 PM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Christopher Jefferson wrote:
Is it really the job of the linker to choose between different
implementations of a function?
Yes. Why do you ask?
Because I'm n
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 02:52 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you? Hint, it was is,
and always will be a joke.
You dare to explain what's so funny about it?
Oh, it wasn't funny. Maybe the English is slightly too idiomatic? I'd
need someone that un
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 03:19 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
You can read it as, it was and will always be, just a bad idea.
When will be a full and standard conforming template implementation in
GCC finished then?
?
Seriously, what does that have to do with anything?
I know, let's not recommend
On Sunday, April 17, 2005, at 03:54 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
Doesn't dejagnu do this anyway? Ie. any unexpected errors or warnings
will cause the test to fail.
Yes, see ``excess''.
On Apr 18, 2005, at 9:55 AM, Devang Patel wrote:
From line_map comment at (libcpp/include/line-map.h)
/* Physical source file TO_FILE at line TO_LINE at column 0 is
represented
by the logical START_LOCATION. TO_LINE+L at column C is
represented by
START_LOCATION+(L*(1<
What happens when
On Apr 18, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Ken Raeburn wrote:
Is there anything in the language specifications (mainly C++ in
this context, but is this an area where C and C++ are going to
diverge, or is C likely to follow suit?) that prohibits spurious
writes to a location?
No, in both languages. The rea
On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:29 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
This seems rather unlikely to be an accident.
I agree, I'm sure it was due to bad system header files, only some of
which had const and others didn't. By ignoring the issue in the
compiler, the compiler works on such (broken) systems. The usu
On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 08:57 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does anyone read the installation instructions?
No.
Not being able to build in the source directory is a bug.
Having to set CONFIG_SHELL is a bug.
Having to install a newer cctools is a bug.
Bugs should be fixed. Papering over them wi
On Friday, April 22, 2005, at 12:52 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
How can you fix bugs in Solaris' /bin/sh?
See the re-exec logic in autoconf was it.
On Saturday, April 23, 2005, at 12:35 AM, sting sting wrote:
If you will comple with gcc
This is the wrong list, please use gcc-help in the future.
What are the disadvantages of using -fwritable-strings
Acceptance of non-portable code.
and why was it removed ?
The 1980s are over. People didn't wa
On Saturday, April 23, 2005, at 05:05 PM, Philip George wrote:
What's the smallest size I can squeeze gcc down to and how would I go
about compiling it in such a way?
My take:
#define optimize 0
and then rebuild with dead code stripping. :-) You'd be the first to
do this that I know of, so, wo
On Sunday, April 24, 2005, at 09:59 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
#define optimize 0
"optimize" is a variable and "int 0" won't parse, so that won't come
close.
I didn't see a patch there that I said was complete and survived a
bootstrap. It was a sketch of an idea.
What did you really mean?
Just
On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:24 PM, Øystein Johansen wrote:
This may be a silly question,
gcc-help is for silly questions...
But why is the /gcc4.1/include/ directory empty?
Why not?
I expected to see that directory filled with *.h files and a sys/
directory.
Ok, but why?
It's not there?
Right.
Which fi
On Apr 26, 2005, at 1:00 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
when porting gcc (still 3.4.4), how do I exactly know whether I
need to pass --enable-sjlj-exceptions to configure?
You should never need it.
Is there a test case which fails if I need it and have it not
enabled, and passes otherwise (disabled and
On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:40 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
Thanks for the info. I have posted a proposed patch on the gcc-
patches mailing list here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02720.html
Yes, this is ok. One final nit, if you'd like to fix it as well, is
that obj-c++ should be a
On Apr 27, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Martin Koegler wrote:
@@ -2070,6 +2078,7 @@
result = build3 (CALL_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (fntype),
function, coerced_params, NULL_TREE);
+ EXPR_MEM_AREA (result) = DEFAULT_MEM_AREA;
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (result) = 1;
In the future, please use -p to diff.
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
It would be nice if bootstrap emitted timestamps when it was started
and when it completed a stage so one could just look at the make
output.
You can get them differenced for free by using:
time make boostrap
and written to a log file with
On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --target=powerpc-eabi
powerpc-unknown-eabi?
On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Neil Booth wrote:
Even better, you can turn of the warning with a cast, making your
intent explicit to the compiler, so there's every reason to have
it on by default.
And, if you don't like casts, you can (...)&255 or whatever.
On Apr 30, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Note why again are you using Apple's branch. It does not get all
fixes
which the 4.0 release branch will get.
It has all that the 4.0.0 release got. Next time we merge, we'll
pull in all the then current 4.0 release branch fodder. As we switc
On Apr 30, 2005, at 7:51 PM, Bill Northcott wrote:
However, if they are enabled in the build, libobjc and libgfortran
do build. Are they likely to be functional?
I'd hate to guess, seems make check would tell you if they do. I'd
expect there might be an issue with selecting the right multilib
On Apr 30, 2005, at 5:28 AM, Bill Northcott wrote:
There are a number of problems:
1. Since I am using a PPC7455 based computer 64bit executables
won't run and the 64 bit libraries are effectively cross
compilations. So the configure scripts need the same APPLE LOCAL
mods used in libstdc++
On Apr 29, 2005, at 6:03 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
I've seen claims that Darwin's linker is much more efficient than the
GNU linker, though I haven't confirmed this.
:-) I have a vague recollection this is true (32=bit only).
If someone wants to post linux numbers and the command, I'll redo on
my box.
On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:41 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Lars Segerlund wrote:
If we do a reasonable comparison of compile times against the
intel compiler or
the portland group or something similar we consistenly find that
gcc is slower
by a couple of
int avail;
int main() {
while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0)
continue;
return 0;
}
Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely
loops, or should it be obligated to actually fetch from memory?
Hint, 3.3 fetched.
I get:
L6:
b L6
on mainline and 4.0.
On May 4, 2005, at 10:59 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
I'm not sure who I should address this to...I hope this is correct.
If I share memory between two processes, and protect access to the
memory using standard locking (fcntl(), for instance), do I need to
specify that the memory is volatile?
It is
On May 4, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
One problem with using volatile is that it can destroy performance.
Gosh, I was going to elaborate and give the more complete answer, but
decided against it, I was wrong.
only need to really read it in from memory the first time after I
take a
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 11:28 AM, ji tai wrote:
why i can't send mail?
Your email came though, so apparently you can with this account. If
there is another account you cannot send from, you will have to read
the email bounce message, it should describe why you would be unable to
send emai
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Tobe Olisa wrote:
On performing a C++ compilation using g++, I get no
errors, and my codes compile and execute cleanly.
However, on using gcc - which I actually need to
use,
This sounds odd.
I get a screenful of error messages, specifically
these:
undefine
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 02:53 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
I wish the same were possible on Linux and Mac OS X but I have not
been able to create a shared library that is statically linked against
libgcj.a
Should just work, though, you don't want to link -static built objects
into a .dylib, you m
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 10:06 PM, Stephane Wirtel wrote:
I would like to know how many stages are there ?
What's the first stage ?
Denial, wait, or was that the last one... :-)
Click on Stage 1 on our web site, then read...
On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Björn Haase wrote:
I'd like to have a look the rtx that triggers this error.
p x
pr
in gdb. See gcc/gdbinit.in for yet more functions.
On May 9, 2005, at 10:20 PM, Vasanth wrote:
How do I run the C++ testsuite on my compiler?
make check, it isn't meant to be that hard or complex. If you get 10
or fewer unexpected failures in the C++ testsuite and the libstdc++
testsuite, then, you are in the game, if more, you'll want to
in
On May 11, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I actually have a vague recollection that gcc used to implement
something along these lines, but I couldn't find it in five minutes of
searching.
I think you're thinking of the old xref code in the C++ frontend or
the old typeinfo. One could g
On May 12, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
Is the compiler allowed to suppress b2 and/or b3 from the layout of
the
object.
Yes, of course, in some cases. For example when whole program
analysis tells it, it can.
The next question comes when b1,b2 and b3 are in various places
in
On Friday, May 13, 2005, at 11:28 PM, maha lakshmi wrote:
I would like know if GCC compiler 2.95.3 could be
installed on Red Hat Entreprise Linux ES 3.0 and
recompile C/C++ programs that were written/compiled earlier
using 2.95.3 GCC compiler on Sun Solaris V 2.6
machine.
Also would like to know t
Short answer, no.
I think we'd welcome patches to make gcc work great on boxes like this;
but, it is a hard problem, and the right patches are invariably going
to be hard to produce. The problem is the right patches will need to
be target independent, so that support could be added for any simi
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 01:14 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
i think you may find that a less stringent goal - of doing
"outsourcing" - may result in an intermediate useable compromise
that would keep most people happy or at least a whole damn lot
more happy than they are at the
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 01:01 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
unfortunately, integration of aspex's proprietary tool-chain - written
in modula-2 - is extremely unlikely to ever be integrated into gcc.
Right. But the ideas could be. The ideas in some respects are more
important than
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 03:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
the list archives are suffering from exactly the same problem that i
am - spam
This is massively off-topic for this list.
On Sunday, May 15, 2005, at 04:11 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
wrote:
*click* - so you you... ooo :)
holy cow.
you looked at valarray,
No, not really, I'm not a library guy. I know of almost nothing of the
space, the applications or the tricks people play, but...
and went "how
On May 16, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
Is it pertinent to remind people of the wider spread of Free
Software, such as Bangladesh (Brave GNU World, issue 56) and Africa
(various issues of Brave GNU World Eg 53,43) where people have
considerably more difficulties keeping up with Moore's Law?
On May 16, 2005, at 12:21 PM, Nicholas K Rivers wrote:
I'm new to GCC and hoping to get involved in its development. I'm
working on
moving tests out of testsuite/gcc.misc-tests and putting them into
the more
general frameworks--a project listed on
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/beginner.html. Is t
On May 17, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
It wouldn't look like escape to (at least some compilers')
optimizers if, say, the front end folded it to a constant. So, I'm
not sure how to express what constitutes escape.
Well, we're going to need to ensure the optimizer can see various
t
I'm trying to build top of tree...
make[2]: Leaving directory `/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-darwinO2/powerpc-
apple-darwin8.0.0/libjava'
make[2]: Entering directory `/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-darwinO2/powerpc-
apple-darwin8.0.0/libjava'
make[2]: *** No rule to make target `0', needed by `gnu/awt.list'.
S
On May 17, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
it is that whether or not you spell "8" as "8", "&s.x - &s.y", or
"offsetof (S, x) - offsetof (S, y)" should not matter, in which
case I certainly agree.
Yes, that is it, we agree.
On May 17, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Karel Gardas wrote:
1) the most expensive seems to be comptypes -- at least from data L2
refill point of view (~17%)
2) comptypes is also the most CPU intensive operation since the most
of time is spent there
I think comptypes can be sped up by canonicalizing type
e submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
This was a fallout from some changes Mark and Geoff wanted. :-( I
didn't get hit by it because I have too much ram.
Anyway, easy enough to fix:
2005-05-18 M
mrs bash[73] nm i586-pc-linux-gnu/libobjc/.libs/libobjc.so.1 | grep
gcc_unre
U gcc_unreachable
:-(
This is killing the Objective-C testsuite for me...
On May 19, 2005, at 2:44 AM, Bill Northcott wrote:
I have been building gcc-4.0.0 from Apple sources with tags in the
apple-ppc-5000 series.
I was getting lots of messages like this "spec failure:
unrecognized spec option 'Q'"
I amended /usr/lib/gcc/powerpc-apple-darwin8/4.0.0/specs
rm -rf /u
On May 19, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Nobody's objected, and it's fine by me. So, let's do it.
Ping.
I kinda wish someone would review the libjava breakage patch for
darwin...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01821.html
otherwise, I don't see the point in slushing to fi
On May 19, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
Was this not fixed by:
2005-05-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.am (Makefile.deps): Do not use \0, it is unportable.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
?
Yes, he checked in my change, and didn't copy me on the email...
Also, somet
On May 19, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Lloyd Dupont wrote:
I want to do a binding to ObjectiveC
For how you described the question, libffi would be the natural
choice and obviates the need for asms or machine dependencies. Maybe
Andrew might have some insight into something libobjc specific that
might
On Thursday, May 19, 2005, at 09:23 PM, Bill Northcott wrote:
Clearly that is the surgical solution, but what is the file there for?
No reason, or put another way, because you've installed applications
that you never removed. That application was an older gcc-4.0. You
can install your system f
On May 23, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
We've researched this in detail.
As have I, I also have the timings for template heavy code with the
more egregious of the bugs fixed in the compiler-server branch, at
that time, they were worth a 10x compile time improvement. If
someone
On May 23, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Ron Hudson wrote:
I am teaching myself C by writing programs.
I'm sorry, this is the wrong list for such questions.
I did a checkin using ../ in one of the files and cvs screwed up.
The ChangeLog file came out ok, but, all the others were created
someplace else. I'm thinking those ,v files should just be rmed off
the server... but, would rather someone else do that. Thanks.
I was in gcc/testsuite/obj
On May 26, 2005, at 8:47 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I have removed these files from the server.
Much thanks.
On May 27, 2005, at 6:55 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Are there likely to be any odd issues
I'm sure there are likely to be issues... for example, c++ isn't
going to link across these versions. As long as one links with
gcc-4.0, the issues of not finding a routine should be minimized.
For C
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
get correct results for some application, the same application run on
PowerPC, where there is no extended precision
? News to me! Ok, who removed it? Speak up
On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC.
Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do:
2004-02-07 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config/rs6000/t-linux64 (LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA): Add darwin-
ldouble.c.
powerpc64-*-
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 08:11 PM, Dan Allen wrote:
I tried doing bootstrap builds of GCC 3.3.6 and GCC 3.4.4 but these
builds fail due to the absence of the 'c++filt' tool.
mrs $ type c++filt
c++filt is /usr/bin/c++filt
The builds proceed for quite awhile until they hit this missing
'c+
On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 12:21 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But that's not the default and you'll have problems when linking with
existing libraries on the machine, that use a 64-bit long double...
Fine, we'll make it the default and recompile all your libraries for
you... give me a seco
On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 04:22 AM, dk zhou wrote:
Hello , I want to make the an compiler for a new
language to produce elf and pe(windows) format file.
Can you tell me where to find the document of
them(most detail)?
All the documentation we have can be found on the web site, or in the
On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Mike says sarcastically, as if this isn't what tiger did :)
Someday, get me drunk and ask me how hard abi compatibility is. :-( I
hate how we did it, and I hate that it was necessary. I hate that
bools on darwin are 4 bytes, be
On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 07:01 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
I think he has to, as far as I know the changes to use libSystemStubs
on
tiger were never backported to 3.4 and 3.3.
If one uses fink to install the older compiler, it just works. :-(
On Monday, June 6, 2005, at 06:03 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
If the required version of any tool is changed then the documentation
of
that version in install.texi needs to be updated accordingly.
Here is an updated patch.
Looks reasonable to me. Would be good to hear t
I'd put this more simply...
On Monday, June 6, 2005, at 02:06 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
I have a question about a valid C code. I am trying to compile the
following code in MacOSX (*). I don't understand what the problem is?
You must use -fno-common when you are building dynamic librari
On Monday, June 6, 2005, at 11:04 PM, Atul Talesara wrote:
I wanted to know if this is a bug
Yes.
On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 07:30 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Is there a rationale for the list of bss patterns matched by
default_section_type_flags_1 ?
That is how bss sections are named?!
Would matching, say, ".bss" anywhere-in or at-the-end-of name be
appropriate?
No, the standard is
On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 02:48 PM, Mathieu Malaterre wrote:
Could someone please explain me what is going on?
You didn't use -fno-common.
Can someone please tell me then which one of the three possibilities
is the right one:
#1. I need to tell the linker to use -single_module
#2. Rewrite
201 - 300 of 928 matches
Mail list logo
