Looking at the function expand_omp_parallel in omp-low.c I have found
the following line of code:
bsi_insert_after (&si, t, TSI_SAME_STMT);
Shouldn't this bee
bsi_insert_after (&si, t, BSI_SAME_STMT);
instead?
Marcin Dalecki
course to be wrong.
Marcin Dalecki
On 2006-10-18, at 12:15, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 10/18/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looking at rs6000.opt I have found that the above command line switch
variable is defined TWICE:
msched-prolog
Target Report Var(TARGET_SCHED_PROLOG) Init(1)
Schedule the start and
On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or
macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much
everything has required some small patch or another.
I guess you are joking?
Marcin Dalecki
On 2006-10-31, at 01:59, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either
fink or
> macports to install unix software when possible,
x27;d need even more hunks.
Or, so that is just an off the cuff proposal to get the discussion
started.
Thoughts?
Will use C++ help or hurt compiler parallelism? Does it really matter?
It should be helpfull, because it seriously helps in keeping the
semantical scope
of data items at bay.
Marcin Dalecki
tsn't true. The compiler would be fine having many
threads handling a
lot of data between them in a pipelined way. In fact it already does
just that,
however without using the opportunity for paralell execution.
Marcin Dalecki
rary files for communication.
And 80% of it comes from the severe overuse of the notion of shared
libraries on linux systems.
Marcin Dalecki
STAGE0_CFLAGS instead
of BOOT_CFLAGS,
because the stages are actually enumerated in a sequence anyway.
Marcin Dalecki
float isn't! Thus this argument by analogy simply isn't valid.
Marcin Dalecki
using natural
numbers, which don't include negatives,
with integers. However it's a quite common mistake to forget how
"bad" floats "model" real numbers.
This corroborates the validity of the analogy with IEEE real
arithmetic.
And wrong assumptions lead to wrong conclusions.
Marcin Dalecki
7;t think in terms of infinite arithmetics
when programming.
And I hold up that the difference between finite and infinite is
actually quite a fundamental
concept. However quite a lot of people expect the floating
arithmetics rouding to give them
well behaved results.
Marcin Dalecki
dered silly?
No that's not sufficient. And a few bit's of precision are really not
the
center-point of numerical stability of the overall calculation.
Please look up
as an example a numerical phenomenon which is usually called
"cancelation" to see
immediately why.
Marcin Dalecki
On 2006-12-21, at 23:17, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Marcin Dalecki:
Well actually it wouldn't "save the world". However adding an
op-code implementing: x eqeps y <=> |x - y| < epsilion, would be
indeed helpful.
Maybe some m-f has already patented it, and that'
On 2006-12-21, at 23:42, Robert Dewar wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Of course I didn't think about a substitute for ==. Not! However I
think
that checks for |x-y| < epsilion, could be really given a
significant speed edge
if done in a single go in hardware.
One thing to ponder
take
not look a bit more like in the multiplication case?
Marcin Dalecki
ectly instead.
(My final goal is of course something in the way of #pragma STDC
CX_LIMITED_RANGE)...
Marcin Dalecki
e:
$ flex --version
flex version 2.5.4
$ uname -a
Darwin xxx 8.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.8.0: Fri Sep 8 17:18:57 PDT
2006; root:xnu-792.12.6.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
∎ Marcin Dalecki ∎
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-23, o godz23:54, przez Diego Novillo:
So, I was doing some archeology on past releases and we seem to be
getting into longer release cycles. With 4.2 we have already
crossed the 1 year barrier.
For 4.3 we have already added quite a bit of infrastructure
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz01:48, przez David Daney:
I missed the discussion on IRC, but neither of those front-ends are
release blockers.
I cannot speak for ADA, but I am not aware that the Java front-end
has caused any release delays recently. I am sure you will correct
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz02:30, przez David Carlton:
For 4, you should probably spend some time figuring out why bugs are
being introduced into the code in the first place. Is test coverage
not good enough?
It's "too good" to be usable. The time required for a full test su
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz04:32, przez Andrew Pinski:
It's "too good" to be usable. The time required for a full test suite
run can be measured by days not hours.
Days, only for slow machines. For our PS3 toolchain (which is really
two sperate compilers), it takes 6 hours
la, that
actually pertains to a request for a #pragma STDC_C99 implementation.
That was a code path example. I'm not going to start about the data.
The polymorphism by preprocessor macro/GTY fun of some(all?) crucial
data types
makes me think that the whole MFC stuff looks sleek and elegant...
∎ Marcin Dalecki ∎
http:///tx.technion.ac.il/~mveksler
∎ Marcin Dalecki ∎
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz19:53, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and
you think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of
100?
Standard answer, tri
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz19:53, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and
you think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of
100?
Standard answer, tri
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:26, przez Andrew
Pinski:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:02:19 +0100, Marcin Dalecki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
That's largely because individual tests in the test suite are too
long, which in turn is because the tests are testing co
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:52, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
One thing that would certainly help as a foundation for possible
further improvement in performance in this area would be to have
xgcc contain all the front ends directly
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-31, o godz12:50, przez Andrew Haley:
Benjamin Kosnik writes:
I am somewhat concerned with the response of the java maintainers
(and others) that it's OK to require >512MB to bootstrap gcc with
java, or that make times "WORKSFORME."
Well, I didn't say that,
ehind a familar
sounding version
number.
∎ Marcin Dalecki ∎
ments in c++ code generation were as a result of
tree-ssa,
you only get with 4.x.
I wouldn't recommend it. One has to adapt gradually to the patience
required to
use the later compiler editions.
➧ Marcin Dalecki ❖
On 2005-02-27, at 23:28, Richard Guenther wrote:
People already know to use __attribute__((always_inline)) (ugh!),
When they discover after countelss ours of debugging dessions during
kernel coding
that the compiler suddenly and unpredicably doesn't honor what they
told him explicitely
to do thus
On 2005-02-27, at 23:39, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Feb 27, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Interesting. You of course know Gaby is always claiming the exact
opposite: That the compiler must *honor* the inline keyword (explicit
or "implicit", ie. inline in class definitions), that inline is
On 2005-03-02, at 03:22, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 1 Mar 2005 at 8:17, James A. Morrison wrote:
Hi,
I've decided I'm going to try to take the time and cleanup and
update
the
Pascal frontend for gcc and try it get it integrated into the upstream
source. I'm doing this because I wouldn't like t
After trying to build the fortran compiler I'm convinced that at a cut
down version of the multi precision libraries it requires should be
included
in to the compiler tree. The reasons are as follows:
1. They should be there for reference in bug checking.
2. This would make installation on system
On 2005-03-02, at 03:36, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Actually I disagree with you GPC is much smaller than Java,
If you have only USCDII in mind yes. But not if you look after any of
the usable, aka
Delfi, implementation of it. You always have to have runtime libraries.
and doing full converage
for a la
On 2005-03-02, at 05:20, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
In fact, I'm somewhat curious what caused folks to jump into the
breach with parsers. From reading the lists it seems to be
maintainability and stomping out corner case problems for the most
part.
Perhaps a parser toolset is emerging that will d
Apparently largely unnoticed by compilation with a C compiler the
tree-mudflap.c and
tree-nomudflap.c files are used both at the same time on my system
(powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0):
c++ -O2 -fsigned-char -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -fno-common
On 2005-03-07, at 17:09, Duncan Sands wrote:
Mathematically speaking zero^zero is undefined, so it should be NaN.
I don't see the implication here. Thus this certain is no
"mathematical" speak.
This already clear for real numbers: consider x^0 where x decreases
to zero. This is always 1, so you
On 2005-03-07, at 17:31, Duncan Sands wrote:
I would agree with Paolo that the most imporant point is arguably
consistency, and it looks like that is pow(0.0,0.0)=1
just so long as everyone understands that they are upholding the
standard, not mathematics, then that is fine by me :)
All the best,
D
On 2005-03-07, at 17:16, Chris Jefferson wrote:
| Mathematically speaking zero^zero is undefined, so it should be NaN.
| This already clear for real numbers: consider x^0 where x decreases
| to zero. This is always 1, so you could deduce that 0^0 should be 1.
| However, consider 0^x where x decrea
On 2005-03-08, at 01:11, Robert Dewar wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
There is no reason here and you presented no reasoning. But still
there is a
*convenient* extension of the definition domain for the power of
function for the
zero exponent.
The trouble is that there are *two* possible convenient
On 2005-03-08, at 01:14, Robert Dewar wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-03-07, at 17:16, Chris Jefferson wrote:
| This is why there is no reasonable
| mathematical value for 0^0.
|
That is true.
It's not true because it's neither true nor false. It's a not well
formu
On 2005-03-08, at 01:21, Robert Dewar wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
Interesting, thanks. The problem is, since the C standard is
admittedly
rather vague in this area, some implementation of the C library simply
implement the basic formula (i.e., cexp(c*clog(z))) and don't deal
*at all*
with special
On 2005-03-08, at 01:47, Ronny Peine wrote:
Hi again,
a small proof.
How cute.
if A and X are real numbers and A>0 then
A^X := exp(X*ln(A)) (Definition in analytical mathematics).
0^0 = lim A->0, A>0 (exp(0*ln(A)) = 1 if exp(X*ln(A)) is continual
continued
The complex case can be derived from thi
On 2005-03-08, at 02:01, Robert Dewar wrote:
Yes, and usually by definition in mathematics 0**0 is outside the
domain
of the exponentiation operator.
Usually the domain of the function in question with possible extensions
there of is given explicitly where such a function is in use.
"There is no r
On 2005-03-08, at 02:55, Ronny Peine wrote:
Maybe i found something:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/ieee754.ps
page 9 says:
Lot's of opinions few hard arguments... I see there.
I wouldn't consider the above mentioned paper authoritative in any way.
On 2005-03-08, at 04:07, David Starner wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:24:35 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 2005-03-08, at 02:55, Ronny Peine wrote:
Maybe i found something:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/ieee754.ps
page 9 says:
Lot's of opinio
On 2005-03-08, at 05:06, David Starner wrote:
The author's opinion comes from experience in the field. When someone
with a lot of experience talks, wise people listen, if they don't
agree in the end. I see no reason to casually dismiss that article.
My point is that there are really few hard argume
On 2005-03-14, at 05:20, Gary Funck wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote (in part):
What's the point of cross-jumping? It saves a certain amount of
space; it has no other benefit. All else being equal, there's no
reason not to do it. But cross-jumping abort calls interferes with
debugging. That's a go
On 2005-03-29, at 05:59, Wei Qin wrote:
Hello GCC developers,
I am avid user of gcc and have 5 cross-gcc's installed on my machine.
Thanks for your great work. Recently I want to do some compiler work
that involves analyzing low level intermediate representation. I
thought about using research comp
On 2005-03-30, at 08:37, Dan Kegel wrote:
Since I need to handle old versions of gcc, I'm
going to code up a little program to fix all
the embedded paths anyway, but I was surprised
by the paths in the pch file. Guess I shouldn't
have been, but now I'm a little less confident
that this will work.
On 2005-04-01, at 23:17, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Apr 1, 2005 11:07 PM, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dale Johannesen wrote:
Agree. (And documentation will be written.)
Yay. It sounds like we're definitely on the same page. I think that
as
long as we keep the semantics clear, this
On 2005-04-01, at 23:36, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
But the question is, do we want all this sort of #pragmas? It would
surely better to improve the compilers decisions on applying certain
optimizations. As usual, in most of the cases the compiler will be
smarter than the user t
On 2005-04-04, at 19:46, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Apr 3, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
On Apr 1, 2005, at 16:36, Mark Mitchell wrote:
In fact, I've long said that GCC had too many knobs.
(For example, I just had a discussion with a customer where I
explained that the various optimization p
On 2005-04-05, at 01:28, Nix wrote:
On 4 Apr 2005, Marcin Dalecki stipulated:
I don't agree with the argument presented by Geert Bosch. It's even
more difficult to
muddle through the atrocities of autoconf/automake to find the places
where compiler
switches get set in huge softwar
On 2005-04-05, at 16:12, Nix wrote:
I could turn the question back: What's so hard about grepping the
source?
Because one does not expect to find compilation flags embedded in the
source?
One does - if not grown up in the limited gcc "community". All the high
scale
compilers out there DO IT.
B
On 2005-04-10, at 19:43, H. J. Lu wrote:
Patches for 2.4 and 2.6 Linux kernels are
available at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.4-seg-4.patch
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/linux-2.6-seg-5.patch
The primary sites for the beta Linux binutils are:
1. http://ww
On 2005-04-11, at 14:01, Andrew Haley wrote:
Nathan Sidwell writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Nathan Sidwell writes:
Andrew Haley wrote:
Might it still be possible for a front end to force all pending
code
to be generated, even with -fno-unit-at-a-time gone?
I think this is a bad idea. You're essential
On 2005-04-15, at 01:10, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:30:20PM +0200, Jason Merrill wrote:
Consider Double-Checked Locking
(http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/
DoubleCheckedLocking.html).
I used DCL with explicit memory barriers to implement thread-safe
initializati
On 2005-04-15, at 20:18, Mike Stump wrote:
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Templates are a no-go for a well known and well defined subset for C++
for embedded programming known commonly as well embedded C++.
My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you?
On 2005-04-15, at 19:58, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| Templates are a no-go for a well known and well defined subset for
C++
| for embedded programming known commonly as well embedded C++.
You'd be surprised to learn that embedded systems people do use
templates for various things -- among which, ma
On 2005-04-15, at 23:59, Mike Stump wrote:
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 02:52 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
My god, you didn't actually buy into that did you? Hint, it was is,
and always will be a joke.
You dare to explain what's so funny about it?
Oh, it wasn't funny. Maybe
On 2005-04-16, at 00:38, Mike Stump wrote:
Seriously, what does that have to do with anything?
Well perhaps my view is somehow shed by the project I'm currently
sitting on.
It's actually kernel programming. And this occurs for me quite to be
quite the kind of
stuff, which may be very well put thi
On 2005-04-18, at 04:22, Dan Kegel wrote:
Once the gcc C++ ABI stabilizes,
i.e. once all the remaining C++ ABI compliance bugs have
been flushed out of gcc, this requirement can be relaxed."
"Thus in esp. on Judgment Day we will relax this requirement".
The changes in CPU instrution sets surpasses
On 2005-04-18, at 04:37, Gareth Pearce wrote:
So I just started trying out gcc 4.1 - with a program which compiles
and
runs fine on gcc 3.3.
Attached is a reduced testcase which shows runtime segfault due to
stack
overflow if compiled with 4.1 but does not with 3.3. Trivial work
around is
to m
On 2005-04-27, at 21:57, 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 not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared abou
On 2005-04-28, at 03:06, Peter Barada wrote:
Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want "make" to complete
instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain,
On 2005-04-28, at 01:35, Joe Buck wrote:
I will agree with you on this point, but more than half of the time
to bootstrap consists of the time to build the Java library, and
speeding
that up is a losing battle, as Sun keeps adding new stuff that
libgjc/classpath is then expected to clone, and the
On 2005-04-27, at 22:54, Karel Gardas wrote:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,456,727
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 725.95
(8,711.36)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)
On 2005-04-22, at 16:30, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does anyone read the installation instructions?
Yes, but not everyone. And even people that read the docs can miss
the info if they can't figure out which part of the docs they a
On 2005-04-28, at 12:03, Dave Korn wrote:
Original Message
From: Marcin Dalecki
Sent: 28 April 2005 02:58
On 2005-04-27, at 22:54, Karel Gardas wrote:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,456,727
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 725.95
On 2005-04-28, at 16:26, Lars Segerlund wrote:
I have never done any 'memory profiling' but I think it might be time
to give it a
shot, does anybody have any hints on how to go about something like
this ?
The main performance problem for GCC as I see it is structural. GCC is
emulating
the conc
On 2005-05-06, at 04:04, Sam Lauber wrote:
There are a few diffciulties here, particularly with addressing the
open stack in an efficient way.
This problem is probably going to get a little off-topic for this
group, and it may be better to discuss this on comp.lang.forth.
I wasn't asking about the
On 2005-05-06, at 18:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
Rutger Ovidius writes:
Friday, May 6, 2005, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:
AH> But Java isn't compatible with static linking. Java is, by
its very
AH> nature, a dynamic language, where classes invoke and even
generate
AH> other classes on the fly. There is
On 2005-05-17, at 11:14, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 03:31 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Tuesday 17 May 2005 03:16, Joe Buck wrote:
How is it helpful to not follow the rules when posting patches
Quite simple:
* I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I
ne
On 2005-05-17, at 11:29, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 01:59, Steven Bosscher wrote:
No, I just don't build gfortran as a cross. There are many reasons
why this is a bad idea anyway.
Such as?
The dependence on external packages which don't cross compile well
for example.
On 2005-05-18, at 14:36, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:35:30 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
If I build main with C1, and libf.so with C2, and execute the
program so
that it uses C2's libgcc_s.so.1, it works.
Out of interest, what happens if you build main with C2 and libf
with C1?
T
On 2005-05-19, at 15:18, Mike Hearn wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:26:30 +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Like building on the system you are targeting?
Like cross building for the target system?
No, like messing around with headers and linkers and compilers, so
if you
are targetting Linux/x86 your
On 2005-05-16, at 22:03, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Georg Bauhaus wrote:
On Mac OX X 10.2, the results are slightly discomforting,
even though I do get a compiler with
--enable-languages=c,ada,f77,c++,objc.
gcc summary has
# of unexpected failures1080
First, I would suggest disabling Ada, in ord
On 2005-05-23, at 08:15, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Sixth, there is a real "mess" about name spaces. It is true that
every C programmers knows the rule saying tags inhabit different name
space than variable of functions. However, all the C coding standards
I've read so far usually suggest
t
On 2005-05-24, at 09:09, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[dropping most of the message - if I haven't responded, assume I don't
agree but I also don't care enough to continue the argument. Also,
rearranging paragraphs a bit so as not to have to repeat myself]
On 2005-05-24, at 06:00, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On May 24, 2005, at 12:01 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Use of bare 'inline' is just plain wrong in our source code; this has
nothing to do with C++, no two C compilers implement bare 'inline'
alike. Patches to add 'static' to such functions (AND MAK
On 2005-05-24, at 18:06, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 01:15:17AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
So, if various components maintainers (e.g. C and C++, middle-end,
ports, etc.) are willing to help quickly reviewing patches we can
have this done for this week (assuming mainlin
On 2005-05-25, at 08:06, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I'm not sure what the above may imply for your ongoing
discussion, tough...
Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start
running
when it was consensus amo
On 2005-05-26, at 21:34, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
For many practical problems, the world can be considered flat. And
I do
plenty of spherical geometry (GPS navigation) without requiring the
sin
of 2**90. ;)
Yes right. I guess your second name is ignorance.
On 2005-05-27, at 00:00, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Yeah, the problem with people who work only with angles is that they
tend to forget that sin (and friends) are defined as functions on
*numbers*,
The problem with people who work only with angles is that they are
without sin.
On 2005-05-26, at 22:39, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard Henderson wrote:
| > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
| >
| >>static const double range = PI; // * 2.0;
| >>static const double incr = PI / 100.0;
On 2005-05-27, at 15:36, Olivier Galibert wrote:
Floating point values represent intervals,
This is mathematically wrong. The basic concept is that the
calculations domain as given by floating point numbers is used
to *model* the real number calculus. Certain constrains apply of course.
But th
On 2005-05-31, at 19:14, Dave Korn wrote:
Speak up now, or we're going to send the firing squad.
Just don't let them use x87 intrinsics to calculate the line of
fire, or
we'd all better run!
Some remarkable time ago I was exposed to a 12 bit "RISC" CPU with
two banks
of 4k ferrite
On 2005-06-09, at 00:57, 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?
The C++ program
#include
void foo() throw (int) {
std::cout << "In foo()" << std::endl;
On 2005-06-14, at 16:32, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
To support different expectations, I suggest defining the following
floating-point options for GCC. This is a conceptual overview; once
there's a consensus the categories, I'll propose something more
formal.
-ffp-correct
Please define corre
On 2005-06-14, at 19:29, Russell Shaw wrote:
The original bug was about testing the equality of doubles. I think
that's
just plain mathematically bad. Error bands should be used to test for
"equality", using a band that is in accordance with the minimum
precision
specified in the compiler
On 2005-06-15, at 06:19, R Hill wrote:
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
[snip]
If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the
discussion then feel free to not participate. If you have
objections then voice them appropriately or risk them being
dismissed as bullshit ba
On 2005-06-15, at 13:50, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Perhaps my understanding of math isn't as elite as yours, but I do
know
that "worser" isn't a word. ;)
Please bear with me. English is my 3th foreign language.
Only the following options would make sense:
1. An option to declare 100% IEEE
On 2005-06-19, at 17:59, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2005-06-19 09:57:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Also I think GCC is not the one who is defining it either. It is
glibc who is defining that so complain to them instead.
Thanks for the information (I'm a bit surprised because these are gcc
On 2005-06-29, at 03:21, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 03:13:45AM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| You did not read anything even vaguely saying that in what
I wrote.
and you, did you?
Folks, can you take this offline? It's
On 2005-08-10, at 19:05, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The even more correct solution is to not build anything with the
compiler (including libgcc) until after it is installed. Then, it
will just look where it would normally look, and all will be well.
install host != build host
Most of the time
On 2005-08-25, at 09:14, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
That's what I meant with my comment btw. It's a horrible idea to
put in all the junk to support inferior OSes into gcc and all other
other programs, and with cygwin and djgpp there are already two nice
enviroments for that.
man xargs?
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
