Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 17:55, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > > How is the get_stmt_ann (stmt) going to work from the caller of > > create_ssa_artificial_load_stmt() when it goes to look at the operands > > for its new "stmt"? > > I am going to repl

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 19:01, Kazu Hirata wrote: > Hi Andrew, > No, I would like to remove stmt_ann_t pointer from the stmt node, but > not yet. All I want to do in this project is to put > tree_statement_list_node and stmt_ann_d next to each other in memory > while doing necessary

Re: gcc 4.0.0 optimization vs. id strings (RCS, SCCS, etc.)

On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:15 PM, Bruce Lilly wrote: Hi, Earlier versions of gcc retain static character strings in object files which can be used for identification via ident (RCS) or what (SCCS). Gcc 4.0.0 removes them above optimization level 1. Global strings are retained, of course, but that may l

Re: Merging stmt_ann_d into tree_statement_list_node

hen someone wants to figure out the vagarities of var_ann vs the stmt list node. Andrew

Re: Regression involving COMMON(?)

On Apr 26, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: Something did common in last night: I see testsuite failures on g77/960628_x.f (for x=0-10), common_4.f90 and g77/980701-1.f thus bumping unexpected failures up to 79. The common feature, if you will excuse the play on words, is common. I think th

Re: Java failures [Re: 75 GCC HEAD regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2005-04-20T14:39:10Z.]

James E Wilson writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >* postreload-gcse.c (hash_scan_set): Removve bogus assertion. > > I agree with Roger here, we need to add code to handle REG_EG_REGION > notes here instead of just dropping the gcc_assert call. See my 2 week > o

Re: New gcc 4.0.0 warnings seem spurious

modified, they evaluate to constants, right? > > The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions, > is it due to the fact that the environment is allowed to modify > them? It's due to what the C standard says. A const variable in C isn't a constant, it's just a read-only variable. Andrew.

Re: New gcc 4.0.0 warnings seem spurious

ion shall have integer type and shall only have operands that are inetger constants, enumeration constants, character constants, sizeof expressions whose results are integer constants, and floating-point constans that are the immediate operands of casts ... > Couldn't the expression fall into #10 with some implementations? Probably, but that would be yet another gcc-local extension. Andrew.

Re: New gcc 4.0.0 warnings seem spurious

Vincent Lefevre writes: > On 2005-04-27 11:37:51 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Warnings are to help the programmer see where there is some code that, > > although not necessarily an error, may require some attention. This > > is a classic case of such a warning. Thi

Re: folding after TER notes

f the many things still on the todo list. Andrew

Re: [bug] gcc-3.4-20050422 compiling glibc-2.3.5 internal compiler error in libm-test.c:ctanh_test()

On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Clemens Koller wrote: I know that there are precision issues with the test-float and test-ifloat tests with the FPU emulation code, but this crash is new to me. I haven't seen this problem with gcc-3.4.3 and glibc-2.3.4. Well... is this already a known problem, a mista

Re: [bug] gcc-3.4-20050422 compiling glibc-2.3.5 internal compiler error in libm-test.c:ctanh_test()

On Apr 27, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Clemens Koller wrote: ...and it's not reproducable yet. On a second try the compile was fine and test-idouble just works... ~/newbuild/glibc-2.3.5-build/math$ ./test-idouble testing double (inline functions) Test suite completed: 2562 test cases plus 2337 tests for e

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava build > -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. Maybe > it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all at > once... :-( But that is not GCC fault that binutils cannot handle that load. -- Pinski

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

> > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava > >> build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. > >> Maybe i

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Paul Koning writes: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava > >> build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. &

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Richard Earnshaw writes: > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 21:55, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava build > > > -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. Maybe > > > it comes from doing some

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Andreas Schwab writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If ld can't accept a list of files from a stream but is instead > > limited by command line length, then that *is* the fault of ld. > > You can always use a linker script. Yeah,

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If ld can't accept a list of files from a stream but is instead > > limited by command line length, then that *is* the fault of ld. > > GNU ld won't currently read a list of

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

22111 0.7875 cc1plus 20260 0.7216 as 19289 0.6870 ld-2.3.4.so 10502 0.3740 make 5921 0.2109 sed 5163 0.1839 libbfd-2.15.92.0.2.so 2855 0.1017 gcj 2724 0.0970 cc1 2218 0.0790 libz.so.1.2.1.2 2154 0.0767 grep 2019 0.0719 xterm 1864 0.0664 ld Andrew.

Re: std::string support UTF8?

On Apr 28, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Laurielle Lea wrote: Hello, I would like just to know if string class of libstdc++ support UTF8 and if not, is it possible to convert string to utf8 ? wstring supports wide strings via wchar_t. string supports just 8bit chars so you figure it out. This question is n

Re: 'make bootstrap' oprofile (13% on bash?)

Scott A Crosby writes: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 10:29:32 +0100, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > -- and it wouldn't surprise me if the libjava build procedure were a > > > major contributor there. > > > > Yes. This is a profil

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

ithout. There would be a small performance regression for statically linked Java apps, but in practice Java is very hard to use with static linkage. Andrew.

Re: 'make bootstrap' oprofile (13% on bash?)

Scott A Crosby writes: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:43:57 +0100, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > However, there is another major disparity here, in that on your box > > jc1 uses much more cpu than bash. I don't know why that might be. > > I

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Andreas Schwab writes: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: > > > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Ian Lance Taylor writes: > >> > > >> > And, yes, we clearly need to do something about the libjava build. > >

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Ian Lance Taylor writes: > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > >> OK, I know nothing about libtool so this might not be possible, but > > > >> IMO the easiest way of making a dramatic difference is to cease to > > > >>

Re: Backporting to 4_0 the latest friend bits

there. In 4.1.0 we do every thing correctly. Even if the patches in the mainline were backported the code in those projects still have to change to get the behavior which they were expecting. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: libjava/3.4.4 problem (was Re: GCC 3.4.4 Status (2005-04-29))

On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Mark Mitchell dixit: In general, GCC 3.4.3 is working for people Does anyone have an idea where to look? This is a bug in your config, you forgot to define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C. -- Pinski

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

#x27;t even think to check, and you're absolutely right. OK, so the low-hanging fruit that remains is the libtools script and the linker. In the latter case, it seems that the big link causes severe problems with small memory systems. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

rewriting the Java ABI so that sumbol resolution in libraries is done lazily rather than eagerly. This will help. Even so, I would prefer to divide libjava -- if it is to be divided -- on a logical basis rather than simply in order to make libraries smaller. Andrew.

Re: PPC 64bit library status?

On Apr 30, 2005, at 9:46 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: Bill Northcott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Even if the libraries build, will libffi or libobjc work on 64 bit PPC Since I don't have access to a 64 bit PPC machine I cannot test this. They appear to work fine on powerpc64-linux. He is talking

Re: PPC 64bit library status?

On Apr 30, 2005, at 10:51 PM, Bill Northcott wrote: Basically my logic is fairly simple. If I use Apple's OS, I feel happier using their compiler. While that creates some problems, it avoids others like the restFP,savFP issue. The restFP/saveFP issue has been resolved since 2004-03-31 A

Re: libjava build times

Richard Henderson writes: > > Now, unless I've done something drastically wrong, it appears as if we > are spending 2/3 of our time in the libtool script. Yes, that's right. That's similar to what my oprofile experiments suggest. Andrew.

Re: GCCNews #15 (events of Nov 04) is out.

very large arrays but variable length arrays. Other than that, it looks great. Thanks for doing this. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Code generation clarification (Submodels)

-m32)? Andrew Walrond

Re: GCC 4.0 blacklisted for kde?

> > On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 19:14 +0200, Biagio Lucini wrote: > > While discussing whether including gcc 4.0 in a Linux distro, someone > > pointed > > out this: > > > > http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-devel&m=111471706310369&w=2 > > > > I have checked the gcc bugzilla and either I am wrong or there

Re: Code generation clarification (Submodels)

On Monday 02 May 2005 13:01, Andrew Walrond wrote: > Simple question, but I'm not entirely clear from reading the documentation Anyone? Pretty please? (a ghastly pleading phrase, which is used by some really strange people in an attempt to have another do something they are relu

Re: Code generation clarification (Submodels)

Thanks Ian; much appreciated. Andrew Walrond

Re: volatile semantics

e volatility of the _object_, and this is at least reasonably easy to understand. This is a bad extension to gcc and will cause much trouble, just like the old guarantee to preserve empty loops. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

eople have found that the libtool script consumes a smaller part of total execution time: rth's measurements are at one extreme of the scale. Andrew.

Re: gij problem (3.4.4)

th no debugging info in libgcj. libgcj builds by default with full debugging info, so something (someone) must have removed it. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

H. J. Lu writes: > On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:23:20AM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Joe Buck writes: > > > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:57:10PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > > > At this point, it doesn't feel like switching to 1.5.16 is worth the >

Re: gij problem (3.4.4)

Thorsten Glaser writes: > Andrew Haley dixit: > > >No, but I do know that I would not even attempt to start looking at > >this with no debugging info in libgcj. libgcj builds by default with > >full debugging info, so something (someone) must have removed it. >

operand swapping in get_expr_operands.

ision pairs are sorted. Andrew

Re: operand swapping in get_expr_operands.

On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 11:07, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 10:28 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > Why is it we try to swap operands in get_expr_operands, where we are > > otherwise simply parsing not modifying? > > > > /* If it would be profitable

Re: gij problem (3.4.4)

Thorsten Glaser writes: > Andrew Haley dixit: > > >In which case it would be best to post a bug report at > >gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla and attach both source and class files. > > What for? I'm 99% sure nobody else has got the bug, since > most probably haven

Re: FORTH frontend?

cularly with addressing the open stack in an efficient way. This problem is probably going to get a little off-topic for this group, and it may be better to discuss this on comp.lang.forth. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

Per Bothner writes: > > We could also save time by making --disable-static the default. > Building static libraries is not very useful on other than > embedded-class systems. I strongly agree. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

of compiling java code to fast, native > executables apply on this platform. I don't think that anyone is proposing to drop static libraries on Win32. Win32 systems have their own requirements that make static libs preferable in some cases. On GNU systems, however, static libs make no sense at all for the Java language. Andrew.

Re: How to get MIN_EXPR without using deprecated min operator

On May 6, 2005, at 9:27 AM, chris jefferson wrote: Michael Cieslinski wrote: Consider the following short program: #include void Tst1(short* __restrict__ SrcP, short* __restrict__ MinP, int Len) { for (int x=0; x MinP[x] = SrcP[x] } void Tst2(short* __restr

Re: RFD: Is there a helper function like "print_rtx_to_stdout" ?

On May 6, 2005, at 3:57 AM, Björn Haase wrote: Hi, I am facing a situation where a gcc_assert call that checks for some properties of a rtx expression, say "op", triggers an ICE (see below). I'd like to have a look the rtx that triggers this error. For this reason, I'd like to know whether there

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

of libraries is required. This is a simple fact, and no amount of declaring " this is what users want!" is going to change it. > Sometimes I see a great divide between the developers of gcj, and > the actual users of it. Spare us the ad homs, please. Andrew.

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

guage subset compatible with static linkage we could do that, but it would be a substantial design effort and we'd need someone to do the work. Personally speaking, I don't think it's a very good idea, as a lot of the Java language as specified depends on dynamic linking, but I wouldn't obstruct someone who really wanted to do it. Andrew.

Re: Missed optimizations: Constant propagation / algebraic simplification re-run after after reload.?

> > Hello, > > when working on the AVR target I stepped over the follwoing issue (IMO not > urgent but still bearing quite some potential of improvement): > > When implementing "lowering" of SImode and HImode expressions to QImode > sequences by splitters after reload, quite a number of new op

Re: PowerPC DWARF2 information mismatch

On May 6, 2005, at 7:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: On PowerPC, we have a test case which results in a mismatch between the register number used for the return address in the DWARF2 CIE and the FDE. That causes backtraces to go wonky. The test case is kinda big, but I'll post it when I get it cut

Re: Targets using implicit extern "C"

h the opposite sense). Darwin still needs NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C, at least before 8.0 because the mach headers were not C++ aware. I know I repeat this every time this comes up. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: ppc-eabisim is broken in mainline

. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: ppc-eabisim is broken in mainline

On May 10, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On May 10, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote: Between 20050505 and 20050510, the ppc-eabisim configuration was broken. /mnt/scratch/nightly/2005-05-10-orv/ppc/gcc//:1: Warning: line numbers must be positive; line

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

problem is that lim uses a hashtable and traverses it but the hashes are not stable. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC1

> size -f tmp.o >textdata bss dec hex filename > 322 0 0 322 142 tst.o > > Looking at the debugging dump shows that the there's a lot of > variables generate by SRA, indeed after adding > > -fno-tree-sra > > textdata bss dec hex fi

Re: Proposed resolution to aliasing issue.

accessed in "g". */ } If we go with this proposal, please make sure that all of the un-nested structs are marked with attribute as this is where I see where most of the benefit. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Is -static a link-only switch?

as an effect but basically -fno-pic. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

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 + optimization passes to do an initial batch of scalar cleanups. + which is rathe

Re: sh-elf tree-ssa failure

On May 13, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote: execute/20031215-1.c passes on i686 and ppc, but fails on sh-elf - both SH1 big endian and SH4 little endian, eight times each. It still shows the same failure with mainline from 17:00 UTC today. Huh, it fails on all targets. -- Pinski

rtl printing

Do we currently have an RTL infix printing mechanism hidden away somewhere? I seem to vaguely recall new-ra might have had something once upon a time... I also suspect others have fooled with it over the years. Is there code laying around I can snarf and work with? Andrew

Re: unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

On May 13, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO. It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the static library case (but not for the shared library case). In my link, I was using th

Re: Need help creating a small test case for g++ 4.0.0 bug

On May 13, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Paul C. Leopardi wrote: +//* workaround for ICC, G++ 3.3+, G++ 4.0+ Why do you need this work around? Why has this not been filed or really fixed in their sources? -- Pinski

Re: AMD64: dead-lock issue with gcc-4_0-branch libstdc++ and POSIX write locks.

On May 14, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Karel Gardas wrote: Hello, just short follow-up to this thread. I've also tried gcc head (from today) and its libstdc++ is OK, i.e. no dead-lock presented. I've also verified that it is libstdc++ and not libgcc_s. Any idea what's going wrong with GCC 4.0.x's libstdc

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC2

On May 14, 2005, at 8:06 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote: 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 That is not unexcited and was fixed only for 4.0.0, there was a PR about i

Re: Auto-vectorization with gcj

On May 15, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: The multiple exit comes bounds checking (which VRP does not remove still because we don't pull out a load of the length). If we add -fno-bounds-checks, we get: Test.java:7: note: not vectorized: too many BBs in loop. Test.java:11: note

Re: Auto-vectorization with gcj

Andrew Pinski writes: > > On May 15, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > The multiple exit comes bounds checking (which VRP does not remove > > still > > because we don't pull out a load of the length). > > > > If we add -fno-bounds-ch

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On May 16, 2005, at 2:46 PM, DJ Delorie wrote: No company is going to spend money on fixing this until we adjust our (collective) attitude and take this seriously. We could call ulimit() to force everyone to have less available RAM. Connect it with one of the maintainer flags, like enable-checking

Re: Problem with -ftree-ter and loop unrolling

is kind > of thing, but it was already obvious at the time that a better fix is > needed in the general case. You've find a pretty nasty one here. Why didn't it trigger? I can't reproduce it by a bit of simple hacking around, have you got a little testcase and options to turn on to produce this? Andrew

Re: [rfc] mainline slush

l/gcc-testresults/2005-05/msg01233.html So we're not quite OK yet. The objc failures were fixed by: 2005-05-19 David Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * exception.c: Include tsystem.h for unwind.h. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: [rfc] mainline slush

our name on the changelog: 2005-05-18 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Makefile.am (Makefile.deps): Do not use \0, it is unportable. * Makefile.in: Regenerate. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: ASM help needed... (on x86/windows/gcc)

On May 19, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Mike Stump wrote: 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

Re: ASM help needed... (on x86/windows/gcc)

ed to know the size of the stack. and that's a real issue for method such as +stringWithFormat:... with takes a variable number of argument I would suggest you look into how libobjc implements forward. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report

S) are preapproved, post-slush. That will not work for the cases where the bare 'inline' are used because they are external also in this case. Now this is where C99 and C++ differs at what a bare 'inline' means so I have no idea what to do, except for removing the 'inline' in first place. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

m.out.println(Math.sin(Math.pow(2.0, 90.0))); } } zapata:~ $ gcj trial.java --main=trial -ffast-math -O zapata:~ $ ./a.out 1.2379400392853803E27 zapata:~ $ gcj trial.java --main=trial -ffast-math zapata:~ $ ./a.out -0.9044312486086016 Andrew.

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

Scott Robert Ladd writes: > Andrew Haley wrote: > > Try this: > > > > public class trial > > { > > static public void main (String[] argv) > > { > > System.out.println(Math.sin(Math.pow(2.0, 90.0))); > > } > > } > &

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

b) means that (-a)*(b-c) can be changed to a*(c-b) and other reassociation opportunities. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

ut.println(Math.sin(Math.pow(2.0, 90.0))); -0.9044312486086016 whereas gcc gets it wrong, at least on my GNU/Linux box: printf ("%g %g\n", pow (2.0, 90.0), sin (pow (2.0, 90.0))); 1.23794e+27 -0.00536134 sin (2^90) is, approximately: -.90443124860860158093619738795260971475 Andrew.

Re: More front end type mismatch problems

> D.1294_10 = first_8 != 0B; > D.1295_11 = last_9 != 0B; > x_12 = D.1294_10 + D.1295_11; For me (on the mainline as of last night), both D.1294 and D.1295 are of type int so it looks like a bug in VRP assuming the resulting type of a comparison will a boolean type. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: More front end type mismatch problems

> > On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 02:32:46PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > This is happening in gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040121-1.c. The test > > > specifically tests that (p!=0) + (q!=0) should be computed as > > > int: > > > > > >

Re: Bootstrap problem

On May 25, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: Attached is also the .i file for tree-ssa-operands.c The failure happens in copyprop3 but that is all I can tell, I have no idea what is going wrong. This is blocking me working on the tree combiner. Could someone look into this? I noticed

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

On May 28, 2005, at 6:44 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: The last few days have seen this failure: I refreshed my source completely, on this occasion, to see if I could get round it. I'll submit a PR tonight if somebody has not found the problem. This is PR 21766. Patch here:

Re: Build failure under Cygwin_NT-5.0

On May 28, 2005, at 9:48 AM, Paul Thomas wrote: Andrew, This is PR 21766. Patch here: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg02543.html>. You will have to explain this to me very slowly, preferably in baby talk The bug was already reported and is PR 21766:

Re: bug or not ? ada loop in gcc-4.1-20050528

c-4.1-20050528/gcc/ ada /spare/ports/lang/gcc/4.1/w-gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc/ada/ ada.ads -o ada/ada.o I'm using an ada compiler bootstrapped from 3.3.6... This has already been reported as PR 21029: <http://gcc.gnu.org/PR21029>. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: 4.0 regression: missing debug info for global variables in C with -O2

eturn 0; } --- Do you have an example which fails? Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: 4.0 regression: missing debug info for global variables in C with -O2

On May 30, 2005, at 3:14 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On May 30, 2005, at 2:59 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: Hello, we've just noticed a quite serious regression in debug info output in GCC 4.0 over previous releases: when building with -funit-at-a-time (which is on by default with -O2)

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

Rether than speculate how things _might_ work, I invite you to have a look at glibc sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/sincos32.c. Accurate techniques for range reduction are quite well-known, and this list is not an appropriate place for tutorials on floating-point arithmetic. Andrew.

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

entation anyway). I have read the sections you mention, and I cannot see how they imply what you write. Can you explain, please? Andrew.

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

same values for a and b: > > void same_sines(double x) > { > double a = sin(x); > double b = sin(fmod(x, 2.0 * PI)); > printf("%20.15f,%20.15f\n",a,b); > } Please! Every correct implementation of libm will not print the same result for these two values, because it is necessary to do the range reduction in extended precision. Andrew.

ERROR in the gfortran testsuite

; invoked from within "catch "uplevel #0 source $test_file_name"" testcase /Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/ execute/execute.exp completed in 217 seconds I think this is due to the empty file "testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/forall_3.x" but I don't know for sure. Could someone check to make sure and fix this? Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Ada front-end depends on signed overflow

le is array (Character) of Character; procedure Initialize; end Asets; ---cut- I will file a bug later today but I thought I would send this out for a current warning to people trying to build the Ada compiler. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Ada front-end depends on signed overflow

be using -ftrapv instead which traps on overflow and then make sure they are not trapping when testing. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: Ada front-end depends on signed overflow

c.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-05/msg00850.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-03/msg02126.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-03/msg01727.html And a couple more places. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-05)

On Jun 5, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Devang Patel wrote: On Jun 5, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Here are three bugs I'd really like to see fixed. * 21528: SRA and/or aliasing problem. * 21847: DCE over-eagerness. * 20928: IA32 ICE. * 19523: [4.0/4.1 Regression] DBX_USE_BINCL support b

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-05)

secondary platform. Yes it is default on two secondary platforms. powerpc-darwin and i686-cygwin. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: GCC 4.01 RC1 Available

<http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19768>. Thanks, Andrew Pinski

Re: GCC 4.01 RC1 Available

On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:24 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jun 8, 2005, at 12:57 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050607/ Please test these tarballs, and let me know about showstoppers

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >