On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 29/01/2010 11:03, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> This should ideally be documented in
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html
>
> Both the way that page is named, and the way the link to it is indented
> under t
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:24 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>> > On 29/01/2010 11:03, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> >>
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Sandiford writes:
>
>>> ** I also consider obsoleting support for the O32 ABI: the SGI linker used
>>> is different from the N32/N64 ld, and has repeatedly caused problems
>>> which couldn't be resolved even when SGI still h
On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Martin Chaney wrote:
> This problem showed up in a PDP10 C version of GCC I'm responsible for and
> took a good while to track down. The fix is in generic gcc code so even
> though my PDP10 compiler is not an official gcc version and I haven't been
> successful at
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Cristianno Martins
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> First of all, I already find [and fix] the problem that I had
> described in the last email.
> Now, I need a help with a pretty intriguing issue, described below.
>
> Well, such as I told in the last email, I'm working on
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It seems pointers are sign extended to wider integers, is that intentional?
> It certainly contradicts the comment in convert_to_integer:
> switch (TREE_CODE (intype))
> {
> case POINTER_TYPE:
> case REFERENCE_TYPE:
>
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
>
> Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much better
> than gcc -O2 while doing crc16:
Reducing the noise by adding a loop with trip count 64, making sure
my powersaving model is fixed at performance I see
-O1:
crc1:f532 cr
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote on 2010/02/14 19:05:24:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Joakim Tjernlund
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Noticed while optimizing crc16 that gcc -O performed much bet
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-08/msg00066.html
> I get that 4.3.5 should come out after 4.4.2, however, 4.4.2 has come
> and gone (with 4.4.3) and no 4.3.5.
>
> Any ideas when this is going to be released?
When enough useful c
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> Mark just made an ICE in the compiler with non-default options a P1
>> bug for GCC 4.5 (xf.
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2010-02/msg01695.html).
>>
>> Can someone please explain why this kind of bug should be
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Saleel Kudchadker wrote:
> Hi I am working on calling the instrument function before every
> function call automatically. I tried inserting this pass which would
> add my function to every edge
>
> //
>
> static unsigned int
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Note that all regressions from 4.4 that are visible with release
>> checking and valid input should be considered P1 first
>
> I don't know, what is considered to be a showsto
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Saleel Kudchadker wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been trying to add a statement before the statement list before
> the basic blocks are created. I am planning to add a function call
> statement before a user function is called and I use the instrument
> function definition a
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Christoph Rupp wrote:
> Hi Jonathan & list,
>
> this is a follow-up on an email from mid-january - i had crashes when
> compiling my library with -O3. I fixed all warnings "dereferencing
> type-punned pointer will break
>> strict-aliasing rules" and got it running.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2010, at 06:18, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> My point: gcc may fail to attract users (and/or may be losing users)
>> when it tries to tailor to the needs of minorities.
>>
>> IMHO it would be much more reasonable to change the default
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2010, at 09:58, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>> The biggest change we need to make for x86 is to enable SSE2,
>>>> so we can get proper rounding be
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Geert Bosch wrote:
>
>> > As I understand it, whether -mfpmath=387 (with excess precision) or
>> > -mfpmath=sse is the default is also considered part of the platform API
>> > (like whether char is signed or unsigned by
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/21/2010 12:13 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 21, 2010, at 06:18, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>> My point: gcc may fail to at
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Sergey Yakoushkin writes:
>
>> I'm cross-compiling glibc(eglibc) for new processor.
>> As far as I can see -fno-toplevel-reorder option is critical for
>> successful build.
>> Without option some files (initfini.c, source for crt*.o) can
On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Bootstrapped and regression tested (it seems nothing was testing these
> options) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> OK?
This is ok if nobody has serious objections and at the same time
is willing to either fix these options for 4.5 or at least sho
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just wrote a little gcc plugin, which can be used to show GIMPLE cfg
> graphically when debug gcc. Currently, it's still a very initial
> version. It,
> * transfers tree dump into vcg file,
> * then invokes vcgview (or aisee etc.) t
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Peter Kourzanov
wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I have the following variation on Duff's device that seems to
> mis-compile on all GCC versions I can access within a minute (that
> is gcc-3.{3,4}, gcc-4.{1,2,3,4} on x86 and gcc-4.3.2 on x86_64). The
> symptoms are as foll
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 08:55 AM, Alain Ketterlin wrote:
>>
>> It looks like gcc sometimes produces "useless" conditional branches.
>> I've found code like this:
>>
>> xor %edx,%edx
>> ; code with no effect on edx (see full code below)
>> test
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Pjotr Kourzanov
wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 10:47 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/02/2010 10:34 AM, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
>>
>> >> int duff4_fails(char * dst,const char * src,const size_t n)
>> >> {
>> >> const size_t rem=n % 4, a=rem + (!rem)*4;
>> >>
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When handling builtin functions there's the fold_builtin and the
> expand_builtin that can be defined. They seem to do their work at
> different times but I am not exactly sure if they are alternatives or
> complementary.
>
> Can'
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> I have the following code:
>
> struct bounding_box {
>
> pack4sf m_Mins;
> pack4sf m_Maxs;
>
> void set(__v4sf v_mins, __v4sf v_maxs) {
>
> m_Mins = v_mins;
> m_Maxs = v_maxs;
> }
> };
>
2010/3/8 Paweł Sikora :
> hi,
>
> during development a cross platform appliacation on x86 workstation
> i've enabled an alignemnt checking [1] to catch possible erroneous
> code before it appears on client's sparc/arm cpu with sigbus ;)
>
> it works pretty fine and catches alignment violations but
2010/3/9 Marcin Baczyński :
> Hi,
> the following piece of code produces different output on svn trunk and
> gcc-4_4-branch:
>
> #include
> int main()
> {
> struct { unsigned bar:1; } foo;
>
> foo.bar = 0x1;
>
> printf("%08x\n", (unsigned char)(foo.bar * 0xfe));
> print
Total 117 - 7
Previous Report
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-02/msg00270.html
The next status report will be sent by Jakub.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/15/10 10:18, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > The trunk is still in stage 4 which means it is open under the usual
> > release branch rules. Thus the trunk is open for regression and
> > d
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> > so will the release managers not consider them P1.
>
> Probably not the best reason to downg
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther
> >> wrote:
> >> > As maintainers do no
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> In the block "Handle constant exponents." in gcc/builtins.c, the condition
> !optimize_size has been replaced with optimize_insn_for_speed_p () between
> gcc 4.3 and 4.4, but I have not been able to find when and why.
> Does anybody rem
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Jie Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at this FIXME in cp/typeck2.c.
>
> /* FIXME: Ordered removal is O(1) so the whole function is
> worst-case quadratic. This could be fixed using an aside
> bitmap to record which elements must be removed an
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:06:49PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> What happens is that rtl_for_decl_location():dwarf2out.c will call
>> make_decl_rtl() which further down the call chain will call
>> get_alias_set/new_alias_set. It matters n
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:06:49PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> What happens is that rtl_for_decl_location():dwarf2out.c will call
>>> make_decl_r
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> > ? ? rtl = DECL_RTL (decl);
>> > ? ? /* Reset DECL_RTL back, as various parts of the compiler expects
>> > ? ? ? ?DECL_RTL set meaning it is actually going to be output. ?*/
>> > ? ? SET_DECL_RTL (decl, NULL);
>> >
>> > ... why do this in
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> > ? ? rtl = DECL_RTL (decl);
>>> > ? ? /* Reset DECL_RTL back, as various parts of the compiler expects
>>> > ? ? ? ?DECL_RTL set me
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 09:26:29PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > That will very much pessimize debug info. While we are now always in
> > -funit-at-a-time mode, that doesn't mean DECL_RTL is computed early enough.
> > From the file scope non-static va
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Alain Ketterlin
wrote:
>
> I've reported here recently about gcc producing conditional branches
> with static outcome. I've finally managed to produce a simple
> self-contained example. Here it is:
>
> int f()
> {
> static int LSW=-1;
> double x=0.987654321;
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What does this message really mean?
> i.e. What should I do about it?
run ldconfig or use binaries from
http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/devel:/gcc/openSUSE_11.1
Richard.
> ld.so should be loading shared objects in /usr/local
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Tadashi Koike wrote:
> Hi all,
> (* I am weak in English, so pleas forgive my English mistake.)
>
> Please teach me about a behavior of -save-temps=obj option
> on gcc 4.5. A behavior I found is whether bug or specification ?
>
> [ summary ]
> compiling is
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> Hi.
>
> GCC 4.5.0 will ship with support for lm32. This is an IP which can be
> configured in several ways (with or without barrel shifter, and with or
> without a hardware multiplier).
>
> To be usable in all cases, it has to support multi
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> On 03/30/2010 05:14 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> GCC 4.5.0 will ship with support for lm32. This i
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello gcc and libtool lists,
>
> Summary: both Autoconf-generated configure tests as well as some Libtool
> construct invoke undefined behavior. Question is how to deal with it,
> and whether GCC, as QoI, may want to define behavior in the
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Richard,
>I apologize for the mix up in testing the race
> condition patch for value profiling of the indirect
> calls on darwin. We may need to regress that out for
> gcc 4.5, but first I would like to try to get a PR
> opened to define the scope of
/msg00155.html
The next status report will be sent by Jakub.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Richard Guenther wrote on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:02:39AM CEST:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> > 1) Autoconf-generated configure tests often fake the prototype of some
>> > fu
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Roman Kononov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> r157834 of the trunk made compilation time almost 8(eight!) times
> longer. The time went from 38 to 291 seconds.
>
> $ svnversion ~/src/gcc
> 157833
> $ make -C ~/src/gcc install
> ...
> $ /usr/bin/time g++ -std=c++0x -O2 -g -Wall -We
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Roman Kononov wrote:
> On 2010-04-02, 20:50 CDT, Richard Guenther said:
>>The patch is about debuginfo. Can you file a bugzilla and attach
>>preprocessed source for the testcase?
>
> $g++ -E -std=c++0x -I../ check.cpp | sed -r '/^( *
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ehren Metcalfe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to develop a dead code finder using gcc and mozilla's
> treehydra but I've hit a wall processing certain initializations of
> global variables.
>
> In order to mark a function declaration whenever its address is held
> i
ferences_in_initializer and record_references in
> cgraphbuild.c
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ehren Metcalfe wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to develop a dead code finder us
,
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 03:45:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > A GCC 4.5.0 release candidate is available at:
> >
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.0-RC-20100406/
> >
> > Please test the tarba
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
> Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
> I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made me wondering how much
> work, and what e
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 06:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
> > Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
> > I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made m
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> :) We need debug info and hammer out all bugs of course! I would also like to
> see possiblity to LTO bootstrap without gold and possibility to not generate
> assembly into LTO .o files. In the typical use where one builds app with LTO
> (such as bootstra
On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > :) We need debug info and hammer out all bugs of course! I would also
> > > like to
> > > see possiblity to LTO bootstrap without gold and possibility to not
> > > generate
> > > assembly into LTO .o fi
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 08:47:54AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 12 April 2010 00:38, Dave Korn wrote:
>> > On 11/04/2010 22:42, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> >
>> >> [ ... ] lack of test results in some platforms does not mean
>> >
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was testing i386-rtems4.10 and 225
> tests failed on the target because it
> does not have any SSE flavor. It is
> the last failures in
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg00954.html
>
> FAIL: gcc.target/i386/sse-1
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Something like printf (Though I read somewhere glibc extension of printf
> make it non-pure).
Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
As for the original question - novops is internal only because its
semantics
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>
>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>
> OK, the point is not about whether printf is pure or not. Instead, if
> programmer knows the callee function such as printf contains no
> memory access that affects
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>
>>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>>
>> OK, the point is not about whether printf is pure or not.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 13 April 2010 12:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>&g
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:14, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While working on the tree-if-conv.c, I realized that the copy
> > of the contents of a non scalar variable are not correctly done.
> > The copy assignment triggers this error:
> >
> > e
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>
> In the generated code for this function I can see a scheduling problem:
>
> int xxx(int* __restrict__ a, int* __restrict__ b)
> {
> int __restrict__ i;
> for (i
.html
The next status report will be sent by Jakub.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
>
> I don't disagree, in principle (less code is always good). What is
> wrong with it?
It asks the SSA renamer
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> >
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing ir
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
>>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I hav
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like first to thank you for the upcoming 4.5 release. I'm really looking
> forward to updating.
>
> I'm also interested in the DragonEgg project (http://dragonegg.llvm.org/)
> that aims to use llvm as a GCC backed.
>
> DragonEgg
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Lu, John wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've encountered a performance issue in a port of GCC I'm working on,
> where the behavior of LIM is affected by the ordering of fields in a
> structure. I've been able to re-create it with a GCC 4.3.1
> Linux X86 compiler. With GCC 4.3.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Lu, John wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've encountered a performance issue in a port of GCC I'm working on,
>> where the behavior of LIM is affected by the ordering of fields in a
>> structure. I've been able to re
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)
>> development team have released GCC 4.5.0. [...]
>
>
> It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins, another
> major f
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, IainS wrote:
>
> consider :
>
> typedef int INT1 ;
>
> int func (INT1 x) ;
>
>
>
> now if I am in grokparms() parsing "INT1 x " and I want to issue a nice
> diagnostic for x...
>
> I can't seem to find the right magic that gets me back to that DECL for INT1
>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that GCC is in the stage1 and gc-improv branch work is finished as
> I see it, I propose to merge it to mainline.
>
> The goal of the branch is to make the type of GC-allocated objects
> known to GC at allocation time, by chan
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> I strongly suspect that mixing -flto and -g might not be a well supported
> option right now ...
>
> Still I also suspect an ICE is not supposed to happen. (I was trying to
> recompile Debian's KDE packages with -flto; the pac
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>> > Looking at the results of the tests executed
>> > by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
>> > any evidence that -rdynamic is ever use
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>> >
>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> Usually I'd report an ICE by using -save-temps and reporting with the full
> commandline.
>
> Now an ICE with -flto happens during the link stage. And, since KDE is
> quite a bit of code, there's a ton of object files and shar
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
> in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
> known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
> The additional overhead for building the plugin support is
> close to
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> While compiling our Weather Forecasting code with the latest trunk, I got
> the following (don't know how long this has been a problem, as I haven't
> tried -flto recently):
>
> lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at
> lt
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 24 April 2010 21:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>> There is definitely a workflow problem though. I have
>>> had patches I submitted through Bugzilla which didn't
>>> g
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 22:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> We had a patch tracking system, and it was completely ignored by most
>> maintainers.
>
> But *submitters* did use it until it went down. So it was useful for
> tracking unreviewed
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi ,
>
> Based on the conversation in the thread at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00513.html , we've tried to get a
> pass trying to undo final value replacement going. The initial
> implementation was done b
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Ramana Radhakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hi ,
>>
>> Based on the conversation in the thread at
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/20
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > Based on the conversation in the thread at
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00513.html , we've tried to get a
>> > pass trying to undo final value replacement going. The initial
>> > implementation was do
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 12:20 AM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I've got a partial patch which works with older (4.3) gccs, but fails
> gimple's check for trunk (attached). My trivial test case...
>
> char *
> foo (char *a, int b)
> {
> return a-b;
> }
>
> ...fails thusly:
>
> siz
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:43 AM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think this is the wrong place to fix this. If you would override
>> the sizetypes precision from your target, would that fix it? That
>> is, in stor-layout.c set_sizetype make the target allow adjusting
>> the passed ty
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, here's where it's getting expanded:
>
> #12 0x081e2805 in convert_modes (mode=PSImode, oldmode=HImode, x=0xb7f63450,
> unsignedp=1)
>at ../../gcc/gcc/expr.c:859
> #13 0x0831f83a in expand_binop_directly (mode=945, bi
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we
> require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html
>
> I'd like to increase the "minimum" MPFR
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> This is reasonable. Note that
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html already lists
>> mpfr 2.3.0 as prerequesite (that page sti
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:50 PM, Simon Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I guess I should really be asking:
> How did most people here learn devving for GCC?
Read the source Luke!
There is no comprehensive out-of-source documentation of the C++ forntend.
Separate documentation is an exception, s
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:18 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been looking at why g++.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof.C fails on
> IA64 (HP-UX and Linux). It looks like the optimization (turning an
> indirect call into a direct call) does not happen because the initial
> run with -
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some broken code, compiled from Java source.
>
> It looks like:
>
>D.843 = &java.text.Collator.class$$;
>_Jv_InitClass (D.843);
>D.845 = &_CD_java_text_Collator;
>
> is being turned into:
>
>D.843 = &j
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Tobias Grosser
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 20:35 +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> 2008/10/10 Tobias Grosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >
>> > Now:
>> >
>> >
>> > -fgraphite: Do nothing.
>> > -floop-block, -floop-interchange, -floop-stri
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Albert Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tobias Grosser wrote
>>
>> Hi graphities,
>>
>> graphite consists of four flags "-floop-block", "-floop-interchange",
>> "-floop-stripmine" and "-fgraphite".
>>
>> If any of these flags is set, we enable the graphite pass a
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Richard Guenther
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Note that we cannot really remove switches from the user, but we have to at
>> least keep them as no-op for
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> I am sometimes wishing to be able to scan some few local variab
901 - 1000 of 2444 matches
Mail list logo
