i was trying to cross-compile glibc-2.4 with gcc-4.1.1 when it failed on me
while building ioperm.c ... poking around a bit, looks like the same issue
discussed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00371.html
however, this seems to have stalled ?
the glibc build system appends -Wa,-mev6 to
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i was trying to cross-compile glibc-2.4 with gcc-4.1.1 when it failed on me
> while building ioperm.c ... poking around a bit, looks like the same issue
> discussed here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00371.html
> however, this seems to have
On Saturday 15 July 2006 05:12, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> The cheap fix is to have gcc not emit .arch ev4. I was planning on
> testing and submitting the following patch for this, but gcc didn't
> bootstrap for a few days...
that'd work for default/ev4 targets (no -mcpu or -mcpu=ev4), but poor old
e
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 15 July 2006 05:12, Falk Hueffner wrote:
>> The cheap fix is to have gcc not emit .arch ev4. I was planning on
>> testing and submitting the following patch for this, but gcc didn't
>> bootstrap for a few days...
>
> that'd work for default/
On 7/15/06, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. But, GIMPLE is also supposed to be type-safe, so I wouldn't think
> that "int = long" would be well-formed gimple.
... or we *could* define it that way.
My point is just that whatever type "compatibility" might mean at the
GIMPLE leve
/Users/regress/tbox/native/build/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/Users/
regress/tbox/native/build/./gcc -nostdinc++ -L/Users/regress/tbox/
native/build/powerpc-apple-darwin8.5.0/libstdc++-v3/src -L/Users/
regress/tbox/native/build/powerpc-apple-darwin8.5.0/libstdc++-v3/
src/.libs -B/Users/regress/
* Joern Rennecke:
> PJ has posted a news pick on Groklaw about a new patent which, afar as I can
> tell, claims the algorithm that Tege has contributed to expmed.c:expand_divmod
> in 1994 (r7598)
> http://www.freshpatents.com/Method-and-apparatus-for-efficient-software-based-integer-division-dt200
> /tmp/ccK4i3re.s:5107:FATAL:Symbol LFBB43 already defined.
Same breakage on SPARC/Solaris 2.[56] and Alpha/Tru64.
--
Eric Botcazou
Is there a reason why both config/gnu.h and config/i386/gnu.h don't
include copyright
notices or even the license they are under. Does that mean they are
in the public
domain or did someone mess up when contributing them?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Is there a reason why both config/gnu.h and config/i386/gnu.h don't
include copyright notices or even the license they are under. Does
that mean they are in the public domain or did someone mess up when
contributing them?
They are (or were) non-trivial enough not to require a copyrigh
They are (or were) non-trivial enough not to require a copyright
notice.
I obviously mean that they were _trivial_ enough not to require a
copyright notice.
On Jul 16, 2006, at 12:49 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
They are (or were) non-trivial enough not to require a copyright
notice.
Then why does config/rs6000/gnu.h have one, it is more trivial than
the others.
-- Pinski
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
Also, do you agree with warning about a class with greater
visibility than its data members/bases?
Sure... I would really like to disable this warning if possible,
since it will be produced thousands
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20060715 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20060715/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
OK, Thanks for the information. Just in case, does anybody already
have it in their head roughly where in gcc code this decision is made?
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Rodney M. Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When executing in foo, the frame pointer will point to a fixed spot in the
activatio
This is the beta release of binutils 2.17.50.0.3 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2006 0715 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new x86_64 assembler no longer accepts
monitor %eax,%ecx,%edx
You should use
monitor %rax,%ecx,%edx
o
Hello!
I have a VERY simple example:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
It could be reduced to:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {return f1 (i);}
Are there any ideas on how and where to add a target and language
independe
I'm porting GCC 4.1.1 to a VLIW architecture.
I have to insert NOP instructions when data dependencies occurred.
So I wrote an algorithm as the following:
foreach(insn in all real insns) {
foreach(dep_insn in LOG_LINKS(insn)) {
if(INSN_DELETED_P(dep_insn)) continue;
stalls = insn_latency(dep
I have a patch that factors code common to all builtin_function
implementations. It is approved for trunk when we get to stage1.
Are the developers involved in the lto branch interested in this
patch? If so, I can port it.
Best Regards,
Rafael
19 matches
Mail list logo
