27;s configure.ac doesn't check for this, but should.
So you're using gas with the Sun linker? Yes, the configure check
definitely needs to test both as and ld.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:05:32PM +0200, Jeroen Scheerder wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz:
>
> [...]
>
> > > So obviously Sun ld doesn't have the necessary support for COMDAT groups
> > > (even with GNU ld, a quite recent version seems to be required).
> > &g
code,
> you will see that this idiom is used everywhere in dbxout.c.
I think there are already some exceptions.
Do those checks still add value over the -gstabs/-gstabs+ distinction?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
I would expect it to be drastically faster. However this won't show up
clearly in the bootstrap. The, bar none, longest bit of the bootstrap
is building stage2; and stage1 is always built with optimization off and
(IIRC) checking on.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
t you're trying to say in this paragraph. Not only
can you skip building libjava, you can skip building the compilers for
any languages that you do not want to test.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>>The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
> >>>
> >>And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
> >>may
The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
about problems with cros
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:10 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
> >> affects people who c
consider them closer to
part of libgcc than to part of gcc proper.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 11:58 -0400, Peter Barada wrote:
> This is for a m68k-linux build (with coldfire-linux config for glibc),
> and its only the C compiler, so adding C++ will obvioulsy make it take
> longer.
>
> >A 2.4 Ghz P4 isn't what I would consider an obsolete machine and it took
> >90 m
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 19:31 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2005 06:55 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 06:45:10PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > PR21173 and its duplicates are a class of wrong-code and ICE bugs
> > > in GCC 4.0
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:23 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > 1. make bootstrap on a 2.4ghz p4 takes 90 minutes for me as of
> > yesterday.
> > 2. Building XLC with (C,C++,Fortran) and a single backend takes
> >
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 11:08 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:23 -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
> >> On Apr 28, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1. make bootstrap on
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 11:03 -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
> Someone complained I was unfair in my gcc bootstrap times since
> some builds included libjava/gfortran and some did not.
>
> So in the past day, I've done bootstrap with just c,c++,objc on
> both 3.4 and gcc4.1. I've put the results in a we
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 11:03 -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
Someone complained I was unfair in my gcc bootstrap times since
some builds included libjava/gfortran and some did not.
So in the past day, I've done bootstrap with just c,c++,objc on
both 3.
ch would affect a non-linear blowup. Do you
think it adds any value to GCC development to shout "please think about
this problem" without any concrete suggestions?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with this ? It is ok in gcc 3 not not ok with gcc4:
#define SERVICE_TYPE(type, val, state) SERVICE_##type = val,
typedef enum service_e {
SERVICE_TYPE(NONE, 0, false)
SERVICE_TYPE(FTP,1, true)
SERVICE_TYPE_MAX
} service_type_t;
Compi
> Do you know why GCC4 is deprecated on sparc-openbsd ? It's simply
> because no-one so far has been able to dedicate the CPU time to track
> down the few bugs that prevented us from switching to gcc 3.x from 2.95.
>
> That's right, I said CPU-time. It takes too long to bootstrap the compiler,
>
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 is nothing
> relevan
E. Weddington wrote:
The suggestion to look at Dan Kegel's crosstool is a good one,
>> but crosstool only handles cross compilers to linux, and hence isn't relevant here.
There have been patches to it for building on Cygwin,
plus the occasional success story on Cygwin, IIRC.
(Perhaps Dan can comm
t; from gcc, either.
No ideas without concrete examples and testcase, sorry.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
> definition of "struct foo" into the output.
Is there not even a DW_AT_declaration for struct foo? If so, it's a
bug.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 11:01 +0200, 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.
>
> > # Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:40 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
>
> Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
> that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
> according to the Wiki:
> # Structure Aliasing Part II
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 13:11 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 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.
> >
> >
> >># C
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:08:23PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
>
> > We can perhaps handle this well in the tree-aliasing code (if
> > it handled restrict at all), but it would be difficult to
> > handle this well in the RTL aliasing code.
perand has DF. Do I need to make this modeless? Or is
> there some other way to create an empty conversion instruction.
You might want to try this instead:
[(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "=f")
(unspec:DF [(match_operand:SF 0 "fr_register_operand" "0")]
UNSPEC_NOP_EXTEND))]
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 02:38:30PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > You might want to try this instead:
> >
> > [(set (match_operand:DF 0 "fr_register_operand" "=f")
> > (unspec:DF [(match_operand:SF 0 "fr_register_operand" &
ese differing series of warning messages give me confidence that
> the debugging info. is correct. Is this a gcc problem, or a gdb problem?
> (I made a few quick probes in the Bugzilla database, but couldn't find
> anything that seemed relevant to malformed debug info.)
Remove the "set complaints" line from gcc/.gdbinit to stop seeing
these.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 14:24 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 10:26:19PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > Oops. Not a modified tree, non-standard command line options:
> > -O -fgcse --param max-cse-path-length=1
>
> Ah, I see. Well, I think this is a misfeature of gcse i
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 03:03 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2005 02:26, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > The rules for c-objc-common.o, loop-unroll.o, and tree-inline.o
> > include $(VARRAY_H), which is never defined, in their dependency
> > lists. The rest of the targets that depe
On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 10:14 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Zack Weinberg
> >Sent: 09 May 2005 19:38
>
> > Bernard Leak writes:
>
> >> Can something be done to make the problem less obstructive?
> >> It's not obvious that the script should try to be too clever and
> >>
t; registers. I'm still trying to understand secondary-reload well
> enough to determine if that's the mechanism I want.
Yes, that's one way to do it. Or you could try telling the entire
compiler to treat them as registers, instead of just reload. That's
likely to work as well or better.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 11:58:39AM -0700, Greg McGary wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ... Or you could try telling the entire compiler to treat them as
> > registers, instead of just reload. That's likely to work as well or
> > b
has $(prefix)/libdata? None I'm familiar with.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Our proposed approach is to -- by default -- assume that "g" may access all
of "b". However, in the event that the corresponding parameter to "g" has an
attribute (name TBD, possibly the same as the one that appears in Danny's
recent patch), then we may assume that "g" (and its callees) do not
The attribute might well be unnecessary, and once it's in it's in forever.
And I suspect supporting
different semantics for different calls will create problems down the line,
somehow or other
(although I confess I don't think of any offhand).
Attributes and flags have more or less the same effec
nt, but can't quite tell if in fact -static has any effect
> during compilation.
I don't know of any; it was a close call on one RTOS I worked on
recently, but it turned out that nothing else was necessary. This sort
of applies to MIPS but that gets a separate option (-fno-pic
-mno-abicalls).
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
anks.
>
> Which versions qualify as "recent" above? GCC 3.4, or 4.0, or both?
Since at least 3.3.
> Is there any documentation on how the new packaging mechanism works?
It's not a new packaging mechanism and it doesn't require any
adjustment; the entire thing should Just Work.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't
> a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known
> problem.
>
> When I compiled openssl-0.9.7g using -O3 and -ftree-loop-linear as
> CFLAGS, openssl fai
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:45 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't
> > > a real bug report, just a sort
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote:
> Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around
> and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal
> executables and header files. [...]
Ian, thanks.
Which version
ot;format not a string literal, argument types not checked");
The only useful difference being that you don't have to duplicate the
string.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:20 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:37 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > > Am I missing something here?
> >
> > Probably not.
> Isn't operand_equal_p used in situations where we're e
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:31 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> 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.
Yes, new-ra has a
On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:49 -0500, Paul Albrecht wrote:
> Eric writes:
>
> >
> > -Wl,-Map=mapfile.map,--cref
> >
>
> I'm not looking for a cross-reference from a symbol to its memory location
> in linked file, rather a cross-reference from a symbol definition in a
> program source file to its lin
cluded in built libraries. The copy in
libgcc_s.so.1 is globally visible.
You are also misinterpreting the problem. The hidden symbol is not the
problem; libstdc++ with an undefined reference to _Unwind_GetIP, and no
dependency on libgcc_s.so.1, is the problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:53 +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 16:17, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Monday 16 May 2005 16:53, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > > The problem is, a bloated GCC has no consequences for the majority of
> > > GCC developers -- their employers have other (
While my weekdays are booked with real stuff (structure aliasing,
array_ref/mem_ref, dependence, blah blah blah), the next couple weekends
i have plans to try to do some serious tree seperation.
My current evil plan is to try to seperate the really distinct _DECL
nodes into distinct DECL trees, sh
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 10:46 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 01:08:29PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > This is probably going to hurt, and will require things like using
> > FIELD_DECL_ macros for FIELD_DECL's, TYPE_DECL_ macros for
> > TYPE_DEC
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 14:59 -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The main case i've hit so far is DECL_CONTEXT, which is also
> DECL_FIELD_CONTEXT
>
> Are there any other cases? Offhand, I can't think of another DECL field
> that's shared by only a subset of DECLs.
An example is DECL_INITIAL vs
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 12:42 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 18 May 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> (b) You'll probably need to change the code that autodetects const
> functions to do the same, and if there's any code autodetecting noreturn
> functions then likewise. Also any code ge
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 16:42 +0200, Davide Pozza wrote:
> I'd need some help to develop a function, for a new gcc pass,
> located after the value range propagation pass.
>
> I'm working on the last release of gcc 4.1.
>
> I'd like to have a function that receiving a stmt (that is
> a CALL_EXPR) an
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 11:13 +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> > Like now we have compiler options like "-mmmx -msse -msse2 -msse3
> > -m3dnow" - would it be possible to optimize the code of the binary to use
> > the GPU with "-with-nvidia-gpu" or "-with-ati-gpu"?
> >
> > I would like to hear s
On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 17:44 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/projet/gujin$ gcc -Os tst.c -c -o tst.o && size tst.o
> >textdata bss dec hex filename
> > 261 0 0 261 105 tst.o
> > [EMAIL PRO
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 18:55 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I just hit this one from tree-ssa-into.c:rewrite_into_ssa()
> >
> > /* Initialize dominance frontier. */
> > dfs = (bitmap *) xmalloc (last_basic_block * sizeof (bit
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 20:33 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Hi again,
> | >
> | > I just hit this one from tree-ssa-into.c:rewrite_into_ssa()
> | >
> | > /* Initialize dominance frontier. *
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 22:00 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | > Parenthetically, I was wondering who is freeing those extensive
> | > regions of storage xmalloc/xcalloc()ed here and there?
> |
> | 1.
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 22:59 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 22:00 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
>
While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions
have come up. I figured one of you might know:
1. Do we need DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME on FIELD_DECL? I can't think of a
place where we would actually try to *output* a FIELD_DECL directly, but
maybe i've missed something. I ask b
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 02:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions
> | have come up. I figured one of you might know:
> |
> | 1. Do we need DECL_ASS
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 00:16 +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 09:45:38PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > Btw, is it me or the individual RTL dump options are broken?
> >
> > The initial rtl dump is broken. The rest work.
> >
> > I think one of Jan's IPA pass manager changes
On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 03:13 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, 2005-05-22 at 02:14 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | While moving FIELD_DE
On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 21:32 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I've actually discovered that we set the assembler name on a field that
> > is the vtable, but never actually use it again, at least for DWARF2 and
> > S
t; >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg02029.html
> > >
> > > It's also PR21638:
> > >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21638
> > >
> > > It looks like Andrew, Jeff and Daniel have
Kai Rottu wrote:
On windows, it is possible to build a binary using a compiler on Windows XP
that can then run on older versions of windows simply by not using any features
specific to the newest versions of windows XP (or by using LoadLibrary and
GetProcAddress to see if those features are avai
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 12:26 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > While moving FIELD_DECL to it's own substruct, the following questions
> > have come up. I figured one of you might know:
> >
> > 1. Do we need DECL_ASSEMBLER_NAME on FIELD_DEC
> hope for a permanent freeze of its soname in the near future. Thus,
> while you've discovered some interesting things by trying this, I don't
> think C++ compatibility patches should be applied now.
There is no such thing as an ABI that will never again be changed.
Designing anything at all around that assumption is just asking to be
hurt.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
C++ in GCC itself - I bring it up to caution us
> against rushing into declaring libstdc++ ABI-frozen. I'd want to see
> at least two major releases with no libstdc++ soname bump and no
> problems reported, before I had confidence we'd gotten it right.
You mean, like GCC 3.4 and GCC 4.0?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Any news on when profile-based inlining will be merged?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00224.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CFG%20Transparent%20Inlining,%20Profile-Guided%20Inlining
have all the official news, but they just say it's not in yet.
I have an app that might benefit from this
ibstdc++.so.7 branch means that we haven't even started the clock
> running on this criterion yet.
That would be three major releases unless you're counting differently
than I am. My point was that we did preserve the soname between 3.4
and 4.0, and no one's reported trouble because of that yet - and I have
fairly high confidence that no one will.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
objected to shipping two versions using the same SONAME in case we
installed the new one and it turned out to be incompatible - which
we've done.
I still haven't seen a valid objection to bumping the SONAME whenever
necessary.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:32:27PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 20:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running
On Thu, 26 May 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2005-05-25 19:27:21 +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
Yes. I still don't understand why gcc doesn't do -ffast-math by
default like all other compilers.
No! And I really don't think that other compilers do that.
Have you looked, or are you j
On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 12:47 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-05-26 09:14:40 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >On 2005-05-25 19:27:21 +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> > >>Yes. I still don't understan
On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 13:09 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those
> > programmers don't fill a proper bug report.
>
> In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels
> impersonal and unrespons
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:59 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54:
>
> > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:59 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54:
>
> > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > MfG Kai
>
> OK, then let me explain it to you. The problem with the GCC Bugzilla
> reporting system is that it's a system that only other developers can
> tolerate, let alone love.
You probably feel this way about all Bugzilla's then, since they are all
the same except for the really large o
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 00:52 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-05-28 17:17:32 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those
> > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there is a problem with
> > GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I t
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 18:19 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "Giovanni Bajo wrote on 29/05/2005 13:54:39:
>
> > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Perhaps because GCC developers think that GCC isn't buggy when the
> > > processor doesn't do the job for them? (I'm th
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 13:22 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Haren Visavadia wrote on 29/05/2005 10:51:00:
> >
> > You can search Bugzilla as well, so you do not fill in
> > duplicate bug report.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several
> duplicates,
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 16:37 +1200, Ross Smith wrote:
> On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> >
> > There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from
> > that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of
> > filling an invalid report or a duplicate.
>
> I
filing bugreports. So it's ok.
>
>
> > 3. Nontrivial search of GCC Bugzilla are, sometimes,
> >extremely slow (over a minute).
>
> 3 could be worked on (Daniel?)
Send me the URL's for the buglists and i'll look at the queries (The url
for the buglist contains
At approximately 2pm EST, we will be upgrading mysql on sourceware from
version 3.x to version 4.x.
This will cause a short amount of downtime in gcc.gnu.org and
sources.redhat.com Bugzilla and GCC's wiki (< 30 minutes).
--Dan
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Russ Allbery
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
>
>
> > It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
> > login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
> > pause
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 18:12 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Daniel Berlin
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
>
> > On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> >> Original Message
> >>> From: Russ Allbery
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> 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 defa
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeing compiler crashes during garbage collection when using mudflap.
The problem appears to be that some basic_block_def structures point to
edge_prediction structures which point to edge_def structures that have
already been ggc_free()
On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 13:03 -0400, Paul Schlie wrote:
> > From: Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 11:43:32AM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> Everyone's who writes C/C++ should know that overflow of signed is
> >> undefined.
> >
> > In practice, however, this issue is comm
ove&care; I hope we'll
be updating our local port to HEAD soon.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
y do you think this?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
I recently worked with a UCLA student to boil down
a reported openssl performance regression with gcc-4.0
to a small standalone case (see http://gcc.gnu.org/PR19923).
We have a bit more followup to do there, but it seems
to have been a good use of an student's time.
So, I'm looking around for oth
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 21:45 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> I've recently sent a couple of gcc bug reports using gccbug. The latest
> one was
>
> Subject: All libjava execution tests fail on IRIX 6
> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 19:34:48 GMT
>
> Unfortunately, the submissions seem to be silently ignore
I don't know about everybody else, but the
subject lines are starting to run together for me :-)
Can somebody suggest a place to start looking for
why the libgcc_s.so built by crosstool's gcc-3.4 can't handle
exceptions from apps built by fc3's gcc-3.4?
The C++ program
#include
void foo() throw (int) {
std::cout << "In foo()" << std::endl;
throw 1;
}
int main() {
try {
foo();
} catc
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 03:57:26PM -0700, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> Can somebody suggest a place to start looking for
> why the libgcc_s.so built by crosstool's gcc-3.4 can't handle
> exceptions from apps built by fc3's gcc-3.4?
Try diffing the output of configure from bu
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Daniel Kegel wrote:
Can somebody suggest a place to start looking for
why the libgcc_s.so built by crosstool's gcc-3.4 can't handle
exceptions from apps built by fc3's gcc-3.4?
Try diffing the output of configure from building one and the other
301 - 400 of 2005 matches
Mail list logo
