Re: RFC: GCC 4.4 criteria - add Fortran as primary language?

Joel Sherrill wrote: Tobias Burnus wrote: According to the GCC 4.4 Release Criteria, http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.4/criteria.html, only C and C++ are primary languages. And thus only C and C++ regressions can be release critical. I propose to add Fortran to these languages. Reasons: - Fortran is r

Re: How to understand gcc source code?

Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: Hello All. Denys Vlasenko wrote: On Saturday 22 March 2008 11:14, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: * on the positive side, GCC is still doing well and alive Why Intel and MS compilers are surpassing it? Honestly, I never coded last years on any Microsoft systems (exc

Re: Failure in bootstrapping gfortran-4.4.0-20080425 on Cygwin

FX wrote: checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error: C compiler cannot create executables See `config.log' for more details. Well, as it says so well, we need to see your config.log if we want to have any idea at all what's happening. That should be the file in int

Re: Failure in bootstrapping gfortran-4.4.0-20080425 on Cygwin

H.J. Lu wrote: Is this related to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01951.html H.J.y t Seems unlikely. I don't see that Fortran was involved in the failure, although both of us included it in configure. If it makes a difference, I'll try to bootstrap C alone tomorrow, from the su

Re: Current failures on Cygwin

Jerry DeLisle wrote: Here are gfortran failures I am seeing on Cygwin as of a few hours ago. I noticed some of these are at -O3, implying some optimization passes at fault. IIRC nint_2.f90 and default_format_denormal_1.f90 are not new. The rest of these are fairly recent. Maybe we need a me

Re: Default warnings and useless extensions (e.g. arithmetic on void *)

Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2008-06-09 16:02:05 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: Use -pedantic to warn about extensions. It doesn't make sense to warn for extensions if they are not deprecated. After all they are extensions. The problem with -pedantic is that it gives lots of spurious warn

Re: GCC and OpenMP

Sophia Han wrote: Hi, It seems that GCC 4.3.1 does not like the SuSE 10. 2v. It failed when I install GCC 4.3.1 on my linux machine. Should I upgrade to SuSE 11v in order to use GCC 4.3.1 or what do you suggest? Thanks, Sophia. Antoniu Pop wrote: Hi, I am currently working on installin

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

Agner Fog wrote: I have tested a few of the most important functions in libc and compared them with other available libraries (MS, Borland, Intel, Mac). The comparison does not look good for gnu libc. See my test results in http://www.agner.org/optimize/optimizing_cpp.pdf section 2.6. As far

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

Agner Fog wrote: Michael Matz wrote: You must be doing something wrong. If the compiler decides to inline the string ops it either knows the size or you told it to do it anyway (-minline-all-stringops or -minline-stringops-dynamically). In both cases will it use wider than byte moves when po

Re: IEEE inexact-flag not working on the Alpha (despite -mieee-with-inexact)?

Roberto Bagnara wrote: > #include > #include > > int main() { > float x = 2; > float y = 3; > feclearexcept(FE_INEXACT); > x = x / y; > printf("%d %.1000g\n", fetestexcept(FE_INEXACT) != 0, x); > } Is this a way of testing whether the division is performed at compile time? Do you ca

Re: trimming excess errors from -Werror

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors /cygdrive/e/gnu/gcc-4.3-20070511/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/17_int ro/headers/all_c++200x_compatibility.cc:1: error: -ffunction-sections may affect debugging on some targets This is actually a useful warning, since -ffunction-sec

Re: ***[Possible UCE]*** Dynamically linking against GMP and MPFR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you carefully install the appropriate versions of GMP and MPFR on one machine in the normal way, and build gcc on that machine, cc1/cc1plus/etc. wind up dynamically linked against libgmp.so and libmpfr.so. If you then copy the compiler to some other system, or simply

Re: Dynamically linking against GMP and MPFR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However there are two existing options in the mean time: One is build/install gmp/mpfr yourself and specify --disable-shared to both. Then use --with-mpfr= to specify using them instead of the system's shared versions. The second is to drop gmp/mpfr into the top leve

Re: Dynamically linking against GMP and MPFR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 25 May 2007, Tim Prince wrote: I spent quite a while getting out of the tangle I got into when I built mpfr and gmp with --disable-shared, leaving older incompatible shared libraries in the path. No doubt, it can be made to work, but with plenty of ways to go

Re: current gcc trunk testsuite failure on cygwin: Assembler messages: Warning: end of file in string; '"' inserted: Warning: .stabs: missing comma

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: phew, a few of the cygwin failures show up like this: Executing on host: /usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/gcc/ -O3 -g -w -fno-show-column -c -o 20001226-1.o /usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c (

Re: Bootstrap failure on ppc64

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, The following error is received on ppc64. Thanks, Revital symtab.o -MT symtab.o -MMD -MP -MF .deps/symtab.Po ../../gcc/libcpp/symtab.c /home/eres/mainline_lim/build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/home/eres/mainline_lim/build/./prev-gcc/ -B/home/eres/mainline_lim/build/powe

Re: testsuite trigraphs.c failure due to cygwin

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 04 June 2007 23:43, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: "Timothy C Prince" writes: [ quoting an earlier post of mine ] So, am I correct to believe that we need to use plain 'inline' for c99 after gcc 4.4, and 'extern inline' before that? That is, I think I need to writ

Re: Some thoughts about steerring commitee work

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:54:46PM +0300, Dorit Nuzman wrote: There are quite a few known simple cases which vectorizer fails to vectorize. by "known" you mean there are open missed-optimization PRs for them? (if Yes, that is what I meant. I'd be happy to file some

Re: missed vectorization (was Some thoughts about steerring commitee work)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 17/06/2007 04:15:56: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 06:54:46PM +0300, Dorit Nuzman wrote: There are quite a few known simple cases which vectorizer fails to vectorize. by "known" you mea

Re: missed vectorization (was Some thoughts about steerring commitee work)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Prince wrote: There are several issues. EQUIVALENCE produces such a problem (PR32373) as do various kinds of references to multiple sections of the same array (PR32375,32376,32377,32378,32379,32380). Only 2 of those PRs involve actual source/destination overlap

Re: I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable (union members and ctors)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html Can someone recommend an alternative means of obtaining GCC source releases? I can't find a GCC source package in debian repositories. EDIT: I should've said the subversion repository is likely unworkible for my setup according to googl

Re: relation between gcc/glibc version and linux kernel version??

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How closely tied are the linux kernel version and the gcc/glibc versions? and where exactly does binutils come in? Not at all closely, although versions from different years are unlikely to be well tested together. For eg: can i run a system with linux-2.4.20 kernel

Re: relation between gcc/glibc version and linux kernel version??

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi For example i hear that native posix threads has portions of it implemented in kernel and also requires glibc support. In such cases if i attempt to run an application compiled with gcc-4 on a linux-2.4 kernel, wont there be problems?? With changes in binutils, would

Re: paranoia on PowerPC

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, In analyzing the output of paranoia, Eric Norum and I have noticed that when compiled at default optimization levels, the results are reported to have a flaw. When compiled with no optimization, paranoia reports no flaws. I tried this with RTEMS running on psim usi

Re: paranoia on PowerPC

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 19:00 -0700, Tim Prince wrote: Should we know which version of Paranoia this is? It's the version having been integrated into the rtems source tree many years ago: http://www.rtems.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/rtems/testsuites/samples/par

Re: Rebuild GCC 4.2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/07/07, S.SRIDHAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi... Now i am working on GCC v3.3.2 and kernel 2.4,i want to upgrade both to the latest version GCC v4.2 and kernel 2.6,i don't know how to do so can u help me That depends on which flavour of GNU/Linux

Re: Creating gcc-newbies mailing list

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since I have been around no more than one year, perhaps my perspective could have some interest for the discussion. Just an example. There are people that post patches in bugzilla and they seem interested in getting them integrated but normally they break coding style

Re: poor optimisation case

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I've found a case which looks like it should be possible to optimise but gcc (very recent trunk) isn't doing which could give improvements in many cases - certainly in a case I've come across: #ifdef NEW unsigned int fn(unsigned int n, unsigned int dmax) thro

Re: GCC "make" errors

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I wanted update my GCC compiler to 4.2.1 to install an updated version of C libraries (glibc) and it is giving me errors while it is making the build. I type ./configure which works fine but when I type "make" it runs fine until it starts to give errors which are

Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops

Paolo Bonzini wrote: I'm curious, does ICC support vector arithmetic like this? The primary icc/icl use of SSE/SSE2 masking operations, of course, is in the auto-vectorization of fabs[f] and conditional operations: sum = 0.f; i__2 = *n; for (i__ = 1; i__ <= i__2; ++i__)

Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops

Paolo Bonzini wrote: 2) selection operations on vectors, kind of (v1 <= v2 ? v3 : v4). These can be written for example like this: cmpleps xmm1, xmm2 ; xmm1 = xmm1 <= xmm2 ? all-ones : 0 andnps xmm4, xmm1 ; xmm4 = xmm1 <= xmm2 ? 0 : xmm4 andps xmm1, xmm3 ; xmm1 = xmm1 <

Re: recent troubles with float vectors & bitwise ops

tbp wrote: On 8/23/07, Tim Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Note that icc9 has a strong bias for pentium4, which had no stall penalty for mistyped fp vectors as for Intel it came with the pentium M line, so you see a pxor even if generating code for the core2. # cat autoicc.cc flo

Re: RFC: Hack to make restrict more useful

Mark Mitchell wrote: > Joseph S. Myers wrote: > >> The rules that unmodified memory may alias were a deliberate change in the >> FDIS relative to the previous public draft; see >> : > > That explains why I had no memory of this, despite

Re: GCC "make" errors

mandeep singh bhambra wrote: > I have installed the latest binutils (2.9.1) available from the GNU ftp site > so I cannot understand why this is occuring. Are there some sort of parameter > options I need to enter or do I need to reinstall the binutils with parameter > options? > On my laptop,

Re: Someone has caused regressions in gfortran (c_char_tests_red.f03, now PR33330)

Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > In comment #7 of PR0, Richard Guenther asked the following question > I cannot answer: > >> Btw, is it mandated by the fortran standard to pass a scalar as array >> reference? > > Does anyone knows the answer? or should it be asked on comp.lang.fortran? > Here,

Re: Is Sun putting much effort into supporting the gcc/binutils toolchain on sparc64 ?

Andrew Walrond wrote: > > I'm trying to conceive a valid business reason for Sun to be so > dismissive of the (surely massive?) gnu/linux hardware market, (even if > they would rather we used Solaris), but it eludes me completely. They are putting a lot of effort into linux on Intel and AMD. 18 y

Re: Any chance for intel core --march?

René Köcher wrote: > Is there any chance for a --march / --mcpu pair for intel core(duo)? > > I'm currently running gentoo linux on a first generation mac book pro > equipped with a intel coreduo processor. Gentoo installation guide > states that --march=prescot is the best choice for my cpu. > Bu

Re: Any chance for intel core --march?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > René Köcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Is there any chance for a --march / --mcpu pair for intel core(duo)? > > It's there in the development sources. -march=core2. > > It will be in the gcc 4.3.0 release. > Could OP be assured that it won't do anything incompa

Re: Signed division with rounding towards -infinity (and floating point rounding)

Christopher Key wrote: > I have some code that needs to perform signed division by a power of two > with rounding towards minus infinity, i.e. it requires an arithmetic > right shift. Now in the C specification, right shifting a signed > integer is implementation defined. Because C may be compil

Re: Poor pow() / floating point performance of on x86_64

Richard Guenther wrote: On 9/26/07, Ralf Lübben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, maybe this is the better list to post the problem (see below). This is off-topic here, gcc-help would be a more appropriate list. True, but it appears to be a glibc problem, rather than one which can

Re: Plans for Linux ELF "i686+" ABI ? Like SPARC V8+ ?

Richard Guenther wrote: The idea is not exactly new, the main complication is that it would need hacking both the gcc (and glibc) side and the kernel syscall interface. The 32bit compatibility entries cannot be used if you want to align long long and double naturally (which you certainly want,

Re: gomp slowness

skaller wrote: On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 12:02 +0800, Biplab Kumar Modak wrote: skaller wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 18:14 +0100, Biagio Lucini wrote: skaller wrote: It would be interesting to try with another compiler. Do you have access to another OpenMP-enabled compiler

Re: gomp slowness

skaller wrote: On Thu, 2007-10-18 at 06:00 -0700, Tim Prince wrote: skaller wrote: I don't know of any OpenMP compiler which would correct the nesting of parallel loops in your LU. I have assumed that OpenMP doesn't allow such optimization; you have to get it righ

Re: Decimal question and sqrt in math.h

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > #include > #include > > int main() > { > printf("\n %1.55f \n", sqrt(3.)); > return 0; > } > > Result: 2 > > Why does this return 2 ?? If you meant to use long double, you should have so specified. Decimal digits beyond 17 aren't significant in

Re: internal compiler error when build toolchains using gcc 4.1.2

马骅 wrote: > hi, > I try to build toolchains using buildroot. but when compile the > busybox, an internel compiler error show. > If you have questions about the advice gcc gave you, gcc-help mail list is the place.

Re: Using crlibm as the default math library in GCC sources

Geert Bosch wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2007, at 05:27, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >>> Initially, float could simply use double and cast the result. >>> For double->float the results will remain correctly rounded. >> >> Yes, very probably, but this needs to be proven for each supported >> function, due t

Re: SIMD-enabled and -lpthread incompatible?

Daniel Verkamp wrote: > The MMX registers are aliased onto the x87 floating-point registers, > so they should be saved and restored correctly regardless. That's not true of all CPU implementations. If you want to be sure your code will run only on the CPUs where they are distinct, don't take that

Re: Does gcc support compiling for windows x86-64?

Ali, Muhammad wrote: > I can't seem to find a concrete answer anywhere to this: does the > current version of gcc support building executables for the 64 bit > version of Windows? > > I am using gcc through MinGW and using the -m64 option results in a > "sorry, unimplemented: 64-bit mode not compi

Re: Installation Problem

Joseph Maxwell wrote: > > I am attempting to install gcc-4.2.2 on an SGI Octane running IRIX 6.5.26 > I untar'd the gcc-4.2.2.tar file in the target directory /usr/local/gcc4x >checking for gcc... gcc >checking whether the C compiler (gcc ) works... no >configure: error: installation

Re: [Fwd: performance with gcc -O0/-O2]

Richard Guenther wrote: > On Nov 27, 2007 2:23 PM, Howard Chu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A bit of a minor mystery. Not a problem, just a curiosity. If someone knew >> off >> the top of their head a reason for it, that'd be cool, but otherwise no >> sweat. > > I'd try -Os, you might run into I

Re: Using -mlittle-endian or -mbig-endian options....

ashish mahamuni wrote: > Hi, > > I am working on Intel i686 machine > I've Hello_World.c file. > When I give following command compiler gives error > that Invalid Option. > > gcc -mlittle-endian Hello_World.c > or > gcc -mlittle-endian Hello_World.c > > I am using 4.2 version of gcc (Latest one

Re: how to compile gcc4 on cygwin?

Fan Zhang wrote: > how to compile gcc4 on cygwin? > thanks The generic instructions are here http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ The mailing lists for asking questions are gcc-help http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html and possibly http://cygwin.com/lists.html You should be able to find useful hints on the archiv

Re: How to describe a FMAC insn

Qing Wei wrote: > Could someone give some hints of how to describe a FMAC (float mult and > add) insn in machine description, it matches d = b*c+a, which is a four > operands float instrution. There are plenty of examples in ia64.md and rs6000.md.

Re: Optimizations documentation

Константин wrote: Hi! I ask you to put optimimizations tips for programmers into your documentation site on www. Sure, there are some texts about program optimimization, but you are the only one, who really understand compilation and execution processes and know how to make program faster. I

Re: Optimizations documentation

Ira Rosen wrote: Here is the link to the vectorizer's documentation: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/vectorization.html Thanks, but I take what it says there with some grains of salt. Yes, -O3 implies -ftree-vectorize on x86_64, but I seem to have to specify the option on other targe

<    1   2