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
26 matches
Mail list logo
