On 08/22/2014 12:18 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:06 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> - one for original latest gcc source code (master for 20140816).
>>
>> - one for my modification based on the original latest gcc source code.
>>
>> - they passed building, but for make check, they reporte
On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:06 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> - one for original latest gcc source code (master for 20140816).
>
> - one for my modification based on the original latest gcc source code.
>
> - they passed building, but for make check, they reported same issues:
So, I see no evidence that you
On 08/21/2014 03:23 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>> It sounds useful to me. At present, my PC is 4 core, so I guess, -j2
>
> No, -j4…. should be around twice as fast as -j2 on your machine (assuming
> you aren’t memory starved (4GB or more)).
>
>> f
On Aug 20, 2014, at 11:29 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>
> It sounds useful to me. At present, my PC is 4 core, so I guess, -j2
No, -j4…. should be around twice as fast as -j2 on your machine (assuming you
aren’t memory starved (4GB or more)).
> for 2 directories are enough. This time (without "--dis
On 08/21/2014 01:35 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> - for each test, always contents "unexpected errors" for gcc, g++ ...
>> but "make check" skip them and continue, at last still "echo $?" = 0.
>
> I use make -k -j16. It is roughly 16x faster. I’d use
On Aug 20, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> - for each test, always contents "unexpected errors" for gcc, g++ ...
> but "make check" skip them and continue, at last still "echo $?" = 0.
I use make -k -j16. It is roughly 16x faster. I’d use -j where n is the
core count. I think -k is use
On 08/18/2014 06:17 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> Then you didn't do a test suite run. make check will create .sum files. Try
> cd gcc && make check. Then in testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum there will be a file.
>>>
After get a new PC, I guess, I have passed "make check" with
"--disable-multilibs" (only sp
On 8/18/14 18:07, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 08/18/2014 03:05 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 08/10/2014 04:15 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Aug 9,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 08/18/2014 03:05 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2014 04:15 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
On 08/18/2014 03:05 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 08/10/2014 04:15 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>
> Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ |
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 08/10/2014 04:15 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>
Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ | grep "\.sum$"`
>>>
>>> Then you didn't do a test
On 08/10/2014 04:15 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
>>> Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ | grep "\.sum$”`
>>
>> Then you didn’t do a test suite run. make check will create .sum files.
>> Try cd
On 08/10/2014 04:03 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ | grep "\.sum$”`
>
> Then you didn’t do a test suite run. make check will create .sum files. Try
> cd gcc && make check. Then in testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum
On Aug 9, 2014, at 9:55 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>
> Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ | grep "\.sum$”`
Then you didn’t do a test suite run. make check will create .sum files. Try
cd gcc && make check. Then in testsuite/gcc/gcc.sum there will be a file.
> After comparing, should th
On 8/10/14 0:55, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 8/1/14 6:36, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> make
>> make check
>
> It is OK (I finish the 2 steps under Mac book).
>
>>
>
> Excuse me, I can not find it with `find ./ | grep "\.sum$"`
>
> [...]
>>
>
> After comparing, should the related ".sum" files be the sam
Excuse me, when I try the testsuite for a new patch which I will send,
I realize I should make sure some related information. So I consult for
them, please help check, thanks.
On 8/1/14 6:36, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> make
> make check
It is OK (I finish the 2 steps under Mac book).
>
Excuse me,
On 08/01/2014 10:14 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Thank you very much for your work. Especially give a complete sample for
>> the whole working flow, which I shall follow.
>>
>> For me, if no related documents for it, I recommend to put a complete
>> sa
On Jul 31, 2014, at 6:37 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> Thank you very much for your work. Especially give a complete sample for
> the whole working flow, which I shall follow.
>
> For me, if no related documents for it, I recommend to put a complete
> sample (e.g. this one) to a related document which c
Thank you very much for your work. Especially give a complete sample for
the whole working flow, which I shall follow.
For me, if no related documents for it, I recommend to put a complete
sample (e.g. this one) to a related document which can be referenced by
other newbies.
By the way, with your
On 07/24/14 09:31, Chen Gang wrote:
strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
'\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over
flow.
Signed-off-by: Chen Gang
---
gcc/gcc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a
On 07/31/2014 11:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/30/14 16:29, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
> strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will
On 07/30/14 16:29, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
'\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or c
On 07/31/2014 06:29 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
>>>
strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
'\0' in the end, so need XNE
On Thu, 31 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
> >
> >> strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
> >> '\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over
> >> flow.
On 07/31/2014 06:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
>
>> strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
>> '\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over
>> flow.
>
> OK assuming it passed regression testing (wit
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Chen Gang wrote:
> strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
> '\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over
> flow.
OK assuming it passed regression testing (with ChangeLog entry as usual,
and you need to say what plat
strlen() will get string length excluding '\0', but strcpy() will append
'\0' in the end, so need XNEWVEC additional byte, or cause memory over
flow.
Signed-off-by: Chen Gang
---
gcc/gcc.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/gcc.c b/gcc/gcc.c
index 6cd08ea..8e
27 matches
Mail list logo
