> + no) BUGURL="";
just BUGURL= (no useless trailing semicolon).
> + case ${BUGURL} in
Please quote this as "$BUGURL".
> +REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$BUGURL>"
> +REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $BUGURL | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
Please do this instead:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] "$BUGURL" | sed 's/@/@@/
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> + no) BUGURL="";
>> just BUGURL= (no useless trailing semicolon).
>>
>>> + case ${BUGURL} in
>> Please quote this as "$BUGURL".
>
> That would
H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:13:30AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Please do this instead:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "$BUGURL" | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}
>>
>
> Will it work with spaces in $BUGURL?
Yes, it will. You need quoting in
Andrea Callia D'Iddio wrote:
> I looked for "into" and "ssa" in passes.c, but I've not found
> anything.
"into" does not give much indeed. But ssa should point you to
pass_build_ssa and pass_del_ssa, which should reveal a lot.
> Also I tried with options -fdump-tree-ssa and -O1 but, when
> my pa
Dave Korn wrote:
> On 27 March 2007 18:25, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Or how about using ':=' to force immediate evaluation?
>> That won't help, since backquotes are only expanded by the shell, not by
>> make.
>
> Doh. Yes, we'd need immediate e
DJ Delorie wrote:
> Ok, I suppose, as long as the backticks still get expanded.
They do,
~ bonzinip$ echo "`echo abc`"
abc
Paolo
Dennis Weyland wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've applied for Google's Summer of Code 2007 with GCC as mentor
> organization. I want to make GCC working faster on the algorithmic
> level. I left out the detailed aims of the project, since i want to
> discuss them with gcc developers/mentors first. Do you have
I've noticed a few things in doing the above. GCC 4.x doesn't seems to
do CSE on addresses. Because the VAX binutils doesn't support non-local
symbols with a non-zero addend in the GOT, PIC will do a define_expand
so that (const (plus (symbol_ref) (const_int))) will be split into
separate inst
I don't really like the idea for promoting subcodes to first-level
codes, like you do for GS_COND NE and EQ. Looks complicated and
confusing to me. What is the benefit of this?
Fully agreed with Steven (also on the locators bit).
Paolo
If you go this way (and require special GC/debugger support) you
could as well xor next/prev too and save another field.
Adding a xor is basically free and much cheaper than any cache miss
from larger data structures.
The only thing that wouldn't work is that when you have a pointer
to an arbi
I just found out that just running "automake" is not enough if you have
installed Autoconf 2.59 as "autoconf-2.59", and a newer Autoconf as just
"autoconf".
You have to do
AUTOM4TE=autom4te-2.59 automake
(possibly something like "AUTOM4TE=autom4te-2.59 automake-1.9").
I thought that shari
(define_insn "adddi3_internal_1"
[(set (match_operand:DI 0 "register_operand" "=d,&d")
(plus:DI (match_operand:DI 1 "register_operand" "0,d")
(match_operand:DI 2 "register_operand" "d,d")))
(clobber (match_operand:SI 3 "register_operand" "=d,d"))]
"!TARGET_64BIT &
This should be a post-reload (i.e. predicated on reload_completed)
split, I think.
Actually, with the relatively recent lower-subreg work, it is
desirable to split this sort of instruction before reload. That is,
do an unconditional split.
Right. Combine cannot cope with the resulting 4-in
Hi!
Initially I meant to optimize GCC, that includes runtime and memory
usage, of course.
Sure. I meant that we have testcases that are good to test your work
on. Profile GCC running them and fix the hotspots: this may show
quadratic algorithms, and the like.
For example, see the patch
30786 is ICE-on-invalid. 30805 is ICE-on-unspecified.
I don't like ICEs but these don't seem like release-blockers to me.
Anyway I attached prototype patches for these. I don't have resources
to test them for three weeks, so if anybody can beat me to it...
Paolo
I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn off
REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
pressure is relieved.
Could be something like
for each bb
for each insn
for each active insn
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I suppose we could add a target macro to let individual ports turn
off REG_NO_CONFLICT generation? Any other ideas?
A pass to reorder insns so that live ranges are shortened and register
pressure is relieved.
I thi
s difficult for people putting
in things during Stage 1, or compound the problem of having an unstable
mainline.
I think that's not a useful criteria for scheduling decisions.
Let me be more concrete. Paolo Bonzini posted a patch to move
in-srcdir builds to a host subdirectory. This is
s difficult for people putting
in things during Stage 1, or compound the problem of having an unstable
mainline.
I think that's not a useful criteria for scheduling decisions.
Let me be more concrete. Paolo Bonzini posted a patch to move
in-srcdir builds to a host subdirectory. This is
and report (a) the numbers reported by the "time" command, (b) what
sort of machine this is and how old, and (c) whether or not you would
be willing to trade that much additional delay in an edit-compile-debug
cycle for not having to write dependencies manually anymore.
Linux P4 3.4 GHz: real0
The only thing that would avoid this is to either tell the compiler to
never put esi/edi in memory (which I think is not possibly across
different versions of gcc) or to always generate a single asm section
for all the different cases.
Use __asm__ ("%esi") and __asm__ ("%edi"). It is not guarante
I can't seem to find any info regarding an input or print statement, so
i can read integers(my language only deals with integers) from the stdio
and return integer results to stdio.
You need to map these to printf/scanf calls.
Paolo
)? Mark, if you decide to fix it in
4.0, I think it is better that you do it yourself also because of the
time zone difference (I'll be out of home this evening, which is
morning/afternoon for you).
Paolo
2005-04-12 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure: Regenerate.
conf
I think Roger simply mis-spoke because in his original message, he
said what you said: the important issue is having the alias
information available in RTL. Much (but not all: eg., SUBREG info) of
that information is best imported down from the tree level.
Well, paradoxical subregs are just a mess
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
When this patch went into 4.0, Paolo didn't regenerate the top level
configure, although the ChangeLog claims he did:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-04/msg00842.html
You're right. I was being conservative and typed the "cvs ci" filenames
manually, but in this case the
Would you care to take care of that? (I am travelling, and don't have
much time online.) If so, I'd be very appreciative.
Done.
I'll apply to mainline soon.
Paolo
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.
IANA(Language)L, but I think it should definitely fetch from memory.
Paolo
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
When this goes in, I'll submit the conversion of rest_of_compilation to
use the pass manager (I don'
We could allow different amounts of aggregation other than 0% or
100%; that might help some builds.
Per-directory could be useful to the guys using the static library, too.
But what Per is talking about is how .o files are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already ha
We could allow different amounts of aggregation other than 0% or
100%; that might help some builds.
Per-directory could be useful to the guys using the static library, too.
But what Per is talking about is how .o files are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already ha
Canqun Yang wrote:
Hi, all,
Is there anyone familiar with the check routine
check_ext_dependent_givs defined loop.c, and give me
an example explaining why it is needed.
You should not look at loop.c to modify it, because it will hopefully
disappear before 4.1.
But basically, that function looks
Per Bothner wrote:
Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> But what Per is talking about is how .o files
are built. This change
would probably not be very difficult fwiw; we already have done this
in a place or two where we've needed BC ABI support.
As long as libtool supports it, it should
It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency.
My wild guess is that this was not possible when MEM_READONLY_P was
RTX_UNCHANGING_P, and now
The Borland patent is a patent for standard exception handling
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,628,016.WKU.&OS=PN/5,628,
016&RS=PN/5,628,016
http://snipurl.com/et1w
Paolo
Additional members are permitted, and the fields can be order. In
order to create a portable Ada interface, I have to write a short C
program which uses sizeof and offsetof to extract the structure
layout. In theory, it is possible to create compile-time-only tests
suitable for cross-compilation
I modified the code in check_ext_dependent_givs to let
the BIVs always successfully pass the check, then test
the example you have given to me, but the result is
the same as before.
It depends on whether the old loop optimizer will actually decide that
it is worthwhile to use the induction var
> Also there are so many interdependencies
between packages that we have to build a pile of libraries and support
stuff that is never used on the target just so we can get a package
that we do need to configure/build(like sed and perl).
Please give me as much information as possible on sed. AFAIK,
> Now I'm implementing the V4QI SIMD add operation.
Maybe there is no register that can store a V4QI.
Paolo
Ranjit Mathew wrote:
Hi,
Between Tuesday and Wednesday (Indian time), something(s)
went into mainline that is showing me a dramatic decrease
in bootstrap times - a c,c++,java bootstrap on i686-pc-linux-gnu
now takes 51m for me compared to 65-66m earlier, which is
around 20% of savings over the co
> "DLL hell" is a Windows term, not a Unix/BSD/GNU/Linux term, for a
reason.
Unix would have "SO woes".
Paolo
Yes, he checked in my change, and didn't copy me on the email... Also,
something ate my gcc-patches email. :-(
No, I checked it in before seeing your other message with the proposed
fix. My apologies for not giving credit.
(Indeed the fix is a bit different, I replaced \0 with the portable &
Yes, he checked in my change, and didn't copy me on the email... Also,
something ate my gcc-patches email. :-(
No, I checked it in before seeing your other message with the proposed
fix. My apologies for not giving credit.
(Indeed the fix is a bit different, I replaced \0 with the portable &
> This scenario, at least theoretically, becomes a non-issue if we make
top-level bootstrap the only option before we start using C++ features
in GCC, but that hasn't happened yet.
It will happen soon after the end of the slush. The last preliminary
patch has already been posted, then all one
> Yes; in fact 'main' is even superfluous. Just compile
>
> int var;
>
> with -S -O2 -g on gcc 3.4 and 4.0 and look at the resulting
> assembler file, the difference is quite obvious ...
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
Paolo
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
I'd say this *is* PR21828: note that the variables whose
type is unknown are global variables in C code compiled
with -O2 ...
Oh, of course. I was confusing with the first part:
Run till exit from #0 mangle_macro_name ([snip]) at
../..
The condition-code re-use issue is the point, where, IMO, the link to the
subreg-lowering 2.) shows up. After, e.g., breaking down a HI mode "sub"
operation into two QI mode "sub" and "sub-with-carry"s at expand, I consider
it to be extremely difficult to make the mid-end smart enough to identif
There has been a lot of work recently on making GCC output faster
code. But GCC isn't very fast. On my slow 750MHz Linux box (which the PIII in
it is now R.I.P), it took a whole night to compile 3.4.3.
Sometimes I wonder if Sam Lauber is a Markov generator...
Please read the release notes fo
If I use:
(define_expand "addsi"
addsi3
"{
emit_insn (gen_addhi3 (custom_subword(operands[0], 0, SImode),
custom_subword(operands[1], 0, SImode),
custom_sub
Paul Schlie wrote:
Upon a potential integer overflow of either it's min or max range,
shouldn't the result be set to [min:type-min-value, max:type-max-value],
without the necessity of any further designations?
No.
[10, INT_MAX] + [ 1, 1 ] == [ 11, INT_MAX ] because of the famous signed
int ov
[#1] The signed C integer types int, long, long long and the
corresponding unsigned types are compatible with LIA-1. If an
implementation adds support for the LIA-1 exceptional values
integer_overflow and undefined, then those types are LIA-1
co
Paul Schlie wrote:
They need not wrap around. People that are actually on the C standards
committee have told you this multiple times.
Yes, and may clearly produce erroneous results if the value ranges
are not consistent with the factual behavior of an implementation, i.e.:
Are you li
So we are ready! Please try this and let me know of any rough spots.
I'll be on holiday from Friday 24th to July 4th, with no connectivity,
but I will read my e-mail when I come back.
To recap, toplevel bootstrap has several aims, including:
1) simplifying the binary compatibility problems wh
What does "./configure --enable-botstrap; make bootstrap" do?
The same as plain make. bootstrap is the default target when
--enable-bootstrap is given, and its behavior resembles a "bubblestrap"
(see later) in the old system.
This removes the wart where "make" following a "make bootstrap
How difficult do you think this will be with the new toplevel
bootstrap?
Make gcjx depend on libstdc++-v3, and add "bootstrap=true" to both in
Makefile.def. In cp/Make-lang.in, set boot_language=yes. It should
just work.
Paolo
The patch I am committing that makes the RTL passes be sequenced with
the pass manager, will also move init_tree_optimization_passes to
passes.c from tree-optimize.c. It is advisable that, before doing the
next merge to mainline on a tree that touches tree-optimize.c, you do
a diff between you
(this is Linux, the same happens on Darwin).
This is not really a good idea, as movsd of a double-precision 1.0 is
faster.
I wonder whether fixing compress_float_constant is better. It seems
similar to the old hack in expr.c: expanding a/b to a*(1/b), and hope
that it is transformed back to
In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how RTL
really works organized in a way that most developers would probably find
better.
If the guy has copyright assignment on file, I can volunteer to convert
this. Is the PDF made from latex? If so I have some scripts to aid.
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
where you said:
> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
> it still seems desirable to have it as a coh
> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
where you said:
> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
> it still seems desirable to have it as a coh
- The assignment reference to x is valid as it's not specified as const,
therefore must be performed, unless:
You simply got the purpose of optimization and, to some extent,
high-level languages wrong. This thread shows that if people are
reasonable (on both sides) a solution will be found.
Heck, it can even search $PATH for us.
That sounds like a good idea to me.
Please assign the bug to me. I am not receiving Bugzilla mail for some
reason, I guess I'll have to subscribe to gcc-bugs and use procmail.
Paolo
Ok, but such a code used to be compiled succesively with gcc for
years. Then, some change _in_ gcc has occured. That is why I've
posted to here.
Yes, it was deprecated in 3.1 (released three years ago) and removed in
3.3 (released two years ago).
Paolo
Paolo, could you go back and think about the bootstrapping problem
from MinGW's perspective?
I had considered cygwin, that had some problems because of the
executable-file extension. I had also thought of using batch files via
config.build, but got stuck because Windows. does not have as f
think the difficulty is that for
Try the attached patch. It gave a 3% speedup on -mfpmath=sse for
tramp3d. Richard Henderson asked for SPEC testing, then it may go in.
Paolo
2005-07-14 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* reload.c (find_reloads): Take PREFERRED_OUTPUT_RELOAD
The consensus also seemed to be that it was just an aspect of a larger
problem that no good solution had been proposed to solve yet.
I am working on a fix that is the same as FX's, but does not pollute the
makefile with host triplets. I am not a maintainer, but this was my
primary objection t
d, 19 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
vs.
1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
:ADDPATCH build:
I have only tested it on Linux, can you give it a try? Ok if FX's
testing succeeds?
Paolo
2005-08-09 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config.build (build_have_sh_s
, instead, can use simplify-rtx.c much more effectively than CSE.
The patch currently has performance regressions in mesa and in
crafty, but overall slightly improves SPEC with a saving of 2-3% in
bootstrap and compilation time.
Personnel
* Paolo Bonzini
Delivery Date
Stage 1
I
This approach seems reasonable. The current structure of the code
in simplify_replace_rtx is intended to handle RTL expressions rather
than patterns, so normally it would be passed just SET_SRC (pat),
instead of the whole set.
Which is why, OTOH, I would be *extremely* cautious doing such a
Maybe everyone else manages to get good code without something like
TER.
That's because we lack other things that people have, like a sane
instruction selection and expression reordering pass: other compilers
probably have something akin to TER as part of instruction selection.
Like many ot
1. Can you please give me an example of something bad that can happen to
the LHS. Maybe I'm missing something here.
In this case nothing, but if NEW were a subreg, it can change a lot.
3. Isn't it reasonable to expect that every instance on old_rtx will be
replaced by new_rtx even if it can
It looks like Jan's patch at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg02021.html is causing a
code size regression in i686. I'll consider a 32-bit target, and this
testcase
char **
VTallocbuf(char **allbuf, unsigned long savelines)
{
return &allbuf[savelines];
}
For i686 we p
void Switch4(int x) {
switch (x & 7) {
}
}
>>
.globl _Switch4
.def _Switch4; .scl 2; .type 32; .endef
_Switch4:
pushl %ebp
movl %esp, %ebp
movl 8(%ebp), %eax
andl $7, %eax
cmpl $7, %eax
ja L12
jmp *L11(,%eax,4)
cmpl+ja are redundant in both cases.
Do you think it is possible for gcc t
Do I always need to recognize the result?
validate_change and apply_change_group will take care of that.
If the answer is yes, than I suppose that if something bad happens,
the recognition will fail.
No, the problem is when recognition passes, and you have a SUBREG on the
LHS that will
Note that I don't want to replace any *def* and uses may appear in the
LHS.
Ok, I see. But you have to cope with *def*s appearing in the LHS: you
don't want to replace them, yet your modified simplify_replace_rtx will!
My plan was to use: replace_regs () to replace every use of (reg r)
w
While researching who is really using flow's computed LOG_LINKS, I found
a define_split in the rs6000 back-end that uses them through
find_single_use. It turns out the only users are combine, this split,
and a function in regmove.
The split dates back to revision 1.5 of old-gcc.
;; If we are
Ivan Novick wrote:
Hello,
How come the following code would not be considered a Warning?
Surely there is no possible way this would be intentional?
if (x<4);
x++;
When you consider macro expansion, it could:
#if SIZEOF_LONG == 4
#define WARN_FOR_BIG_VALUES \
printf ("hey, x is too
Leehod Baruch wrote:
Hello,
Is it true that in a SET, a search for a _use_ of a register
in the LHS should be done only inside a memory address?
Also within the second and third arguments of a ZERO_EXTRACT. And its
first argument may be a MEM, in which case you should look into it.
Look at
David Edelsohn wrote:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
Paolo> I'm testing a patch that does this replacement, and I can post it
Paolo> tomorrow morning. It has triggered only a dozen times so far (half in
Paolo> libgcc, half in the compiler), but it may be worth keeping it
Is this still an open project? and if so can anyone
give me more information on what is needed?
Yes, it is.
Basically, insn-recog.c is a huge decision tree. genrecog.c builds it
and outputs it as C code. It uses variables like "x0, x1, x2, ..., xn"
which would become the virtual machine's
Niko Matsakis wrote:
Attempting to edit the Wiki or otherwise login seems to generate an
error. This may be because I don't have an account. Error text below.
Probably, because I can edit with "PaoloBonzini" but not with "Paolo".
Using "WikiWord" literally is a workaround.
Paolo
Ashwin wrote:
The problem in front of me is something like this..
op0 = 1
op1 = op0 leftshift op2
This will be optimized to
op1 = 1 leftshift op2 (by the peephole2 pass to the rtl pattern
corresponding to this and hence the requirement that op0 should be dead
after insn2)
However if the pat
operands[0] == operands[1] || peep2_regno_dead_p (2, operands[0])
Exactly.. this is the same thing as calling dead_or_set_p(insn,
operands[0]).
i am sorry, since we are using peephole2, the variable "insn" points
to the first insn in the template and not the last. so the call should
be
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-08-25, at 09:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
That's what I meant with my comment btw. It's a horrible idea to
put in all the junk to support inferior OSes into gcc and all other
other programs, and with cygwin and djgpp there are already two nice
enviroments for tha
Ashwin Kolhe wrote:
On 8/25/05, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I consider this to be less readable than the peep2 way to do it,
especially if your peephole2 had three or four instructions. And
peep2_regno_dead_p uses an array (a circular buffer) so it's more
efficie
Why can't this information be used to optimize comparisons?
My patch caused GCC to infer that x & 7 > 7 is false. But I couldn't
think of a quick way to use this to optimize away the check, because
then GCC crashed.
Does it work only for consecutive ands?
Or is it just an early constant
if I modify the type of my_funct to take 3 args (int, int, float),
then the type checker ( which runs before my pass for "main" ) bombs
out saying that the call to "my_funct" has lesser than required
parameters. Where should I be running this pass? The way it looks is
that i need the pass manage
Uros Bizjak wrote (privately, but I forwarded to GCC in order to get help):
Hello Paolo!
I was looking at PR middle-end/22480 if there is something to fix at the i386
backend. However, there is no documentation at all regarding vec_shl_ and
vec_shr_ builtins.
Heh, I'm quite at a loss regar
You showed me that it might be dangerous to replace rtx on the LHS
of a SET using simplify_replace_rtx ().
simplify_rtx () seems safer, is there a good reason why it doesn't
work with INSNs and SETs?
Because it works with expressions. :-)
Will a generalized function called simplify_insn () th
There's no special freeze for the 4.0 branch at this point; we'll leave
it in regression-fixes only mode. The branch will freeze when I create
the first release candidate.
Some of your C++ fixes have been quite invasive. Maybe it's too much
haste to spin the rc before the bugs can be detec
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sep 19, 2005, at 12:46 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/
shows that gcc 4.1 has been failing vortex in SPEC CPU 2000 on
Linux/EM64T and Linux/PPC64 at least since Aug. 7, 2005. The current
gcc 4.1 also failed vortex on Linux/ia64. Is that
Etienne Lorrain wrote:
Hello,
You really do not want to get a correction for:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23631
before release?
I checked again with 4.0.2 20050917, and nothing
has changed since:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-09/msg00251.html
Etienne, does the patch
I applied the patch by hand (not working with CVS) and it
does _not_ solve the problem.
In this case, I am sorry but the probability of a fix before the release
is close to zero.
Paolo
So basically, pick a problem you see, and fix it.
The RTL infrastructure is exceptionally good at doing some things, and
exceptionally bad at doing some others. Sometimes, take into account
the coding style and it is good and bad at the same time. :-( CSE,
flow, etc. come to mind.
All
Ernest L. Williams Jr. wrote:
Hi,
The following code fragment is now causing problems under gcc 4.0.1
Everything is perfect under "gcc version 3.4.3"
Any recommended work-arounds?
= code fragment==
#ifndef __LOC_PV_FACTORY_H__
#define __LOC_PV_
1. Introduce a new BB bit flag and set it for the header BB of a loop that
has no data dependencies. This approach already works, but only if the old
loop optimizer (pass_loop_optimize) is disabled (otherwise the bit doesn't
survive).
Which will happen in 4.2.
One potential problem is that t
I have noticed that g++.dg does not have one .exp file per directory,
and I could not figure out how to run, say, a single test case in the
g++.dg/tree-ssa directory.
I have modified g++.dg/dg.exp to do so, by using "glob" rather than
"find", and then I could copy dg.exp to all the directories
make RUNTESTFLAGS="dg.exp=nothrow-1.C" check-g++
This one I know of.
dg.exp=eh\*.C is another one.
I was missing the *back* slash. I guess it is actually
make RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp=eh\\*.C'
to get the correct escaping when RUNTESTFLAGS is expanded?
Thanks,
Paolo
The only big regression for fwprop on PPC is bzip2. I've distilled it
to this small testcase:
int f(int *);
int verbosity;
int *arr;
int last;
void g ()
{
int i;
if (last < 4000) {
if (verbosity >= 4) f(&verbosity);
for (i = 0; i <= last; i++) ar
I see more trolling than bug reporting here.
This macros get's set according to acinclude.m4 in libstdc++ for builds
which utilize the glibc. Heck? What's the purpose here? Fortunately
there is no such thing as the glibc on this system at all. Looking at
the m4 macro I can't quite see how
> In file included from /usr/include/stdio.h:831,
> from ../../gcc/gcc/tsystem.h:90,
> from ../../gcc/gcc/crtstuff.c:62:
> /usr/include/bits/stdio.h: In function 'vprintf':
> /usr/include/bits/stdio.h:37: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
You are getting a
101 - 200 of 1076 matches
Mail list logo
