Re: ACATS c460008 and VRP
Laurent GUERBY wrote: On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 01:34 +0100, Robert Dewar wrote: Laurent GUERBY wrote: VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure about switching to a full -gnato everywhere. well you can expect some fiddling each version if you work this way The list for -gnato tests hasn't changed since it's initial import into GCC in 2003-10-27, and was present in early versions of acats4gnat may be a year before. Not yet in the "fiddling each version" category :). It might be worth noting in documentation somewhere that this procedure for running ACATS (using different switches on different tests) does not conform to the standardized procedure for running these tests (standardized = relevant ISO standard).
Re: ACATS c460008 and VRP
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 07:29 -0500, Robert Dewar wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 01:34 +0100, Robert Dewar wrote: > >> Laurent GUERBY wrote: > >> > >>> VRP might now force us to update the overflow list but I'm not sure > >>> about switching to a full -gnato everywhere. > >> well you can expect some fiddling each version if you work this way > > > > The list for -gnato tests hasn't changed since it's initial > > import into GCC in 2003-10-27, and was present in early > > versions of acats4gnat may be a year before. Not yet in the > > "fiddling each version" category :). > > It might be worth noting in documentation somewhere that this procedure > for running ACATS (using different switches on different tests) does > not conform to the standardized procedure for running these tests > (standardized = relevant ISO standard). This was implied in README.ACATS4GNAT of my original separate packaging "acats4gnat", but it looks like I forgot to add it to the GCC sources, I will propose a patch shortly. Laurent << [...] Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:56:03 +0100 Just a few notes on the ACATS scripts made available: - The acats4gnat script are not designed to do an official validation, just as a way to get all executable tests to run as easily as possible, and for this purpose I've tried to keep them as simple as possible. Non executable tests are not even looked at. - Adaptation to a cross environment should be easy since the script uses the regular "gnatmake" command, and there is one line to launch the test executable. I haven't tried to do so yet. - The scripts ACT uses (and Joel mentions) are far more complicated because they're addressing the process of a real Ada validation, and I worked on them while working for ACT, but I believe Gary Dismukes wrote the initial version of them. - ACT has kindly contributed their ACATS configuration files which I hacked a bit. - I worked for ACT, but I no longer do, at my new work we're client of ACT services in the non-embedded work. - We're all waiting for the GNAT sources integration into GCC CVS repository, which should solve a lot of problems with GNAT/RTEMS. - When this happens I'll try to provide an integrated GCC/Ada testing driver, and GNAT/RTEMS support is high on the list ;-). - Feel free to contact me through this list or at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you need help, answers, have suspicious looking failures or have contribution to make. I read my personal email from 2000 to 2300 Paris time, if I don't answer after a week, please resend, this is a processing mistake on my side ;-). >>
Build report for AIX 5.1
Hi, i just built GCC 4.1.0 on AIX 5.1 using the following commands: ../gcc-4.1.0/configure --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr --disable-nls --disable-multilib make bootstrap-lean make install $ config.guess powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 $ gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 Configured with: /home/linke/temp/gcc-4.1.0/configure --with-libiconv-prefix=/usr --disable-nls --disable-multilib Thread model: aix gcc version 4.1.0 The system is an IBM pSeries M80 with AIX 5.1 at the latest patchlevel. The building c-complier is gcc 4.0.2 Make is gnu-make 3.80 The disable-xxx configure-options shouldn't be necessary, i used them for buildtime- and space-saving reasons. The whole build took less than two hours. Mario Linke
gcc-4.2-20060304 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20060304 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20060304/ 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 revision 111710 You'll find: gcc-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 Complete GCC (includes all of below) gcc-core-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 C front end and core compiler gcc-ada-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 Ada front end and runtime gcc-fortran-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 Fortran front end and runtime gcc-g++-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 C++ front end and runtime gcc-java-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 Java front end and runtime gcc-objc-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2 Objective-C front end and runtime gcc-testsuite-4.2-20060304.tar.bz2The GCC testsuite Diffs from 4.2-20060225 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.2 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
Darwin long doubles and controlled rounding
Hi there, I have read the files darwin-ldouble* in GCC 4.1.0. What I would like do know is whether I can expect long doubles on Darwin to comply with ISO C99 7.6 (Floating-point environment). I am particularly interested in the possibility of setting the rounding mode with fesetround(). Is this supported? All the best, Roberto -- Prof. Roberto Bagnara Computer Science Group Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is libstdc++ abi_check failing on gcc 4.1.0 on amd64 platform?
Hello, I'm curious why is GCC 4.1.0 release libstdc++'s abi_check failing for me on linux/amd64 platform? I've submited my testsuite results here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg00224.html Thanks, Karel -- Karel Gardas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com
does gcc 4.1 generate "faster" binaries than earlier gcc versions?
Perhaps the question is a bit silly, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. I'm compiling some software for a Linux/uClibc on a mipsel platform. Right now I'm using gcc 3.4.4 to do both native and cross-compilation. A while ago gcc 4.1 was released, and boasts many optimizations. As the mipsel devices I use are rather slow - here comes the point of my question: will binaries I compile with gcc 4.1 be faster than these compiled with 3.4.4? I don't really care about compilation time; I'm only concerned with the speed of the binaries made with gcc 3.4.4 and 4.1 (i.e., will gzip compiled with gcc 4.1 compress a given file faster than gzip compressed with gcc 3.4.4). I tried looking for some benchmarks, but they mainly deal with compilation time. -- Tomasz Chmielewski WPKG - http://wpkg.org Software deployment with Samba
Re: does gcc 4.1 generate "faster" binaries than earlier gcc versions?
Hi, of course most development on gcc is applied to make the produced binary faster. Also most benchmarks focus on the speed of the produced binaries - you just need to look on the right benchmarks ,-) Whether the generated binary of gcc in a new major version is faster depends on your code and optimizations used and I have not tested MIPS recently. For my code new versions of GCC are usually faster, on x86-64 -frename-registers gave some extra bonus on 4.0 IIRC. On Saturday 04 March 2006 20:02, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: > Perhaps the question is a bit silly, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. > > I'm compiling some software for a Linux/uClibc on a mipsel platform. > > Right now I'm using gcc 3.4.4 to do both native and cross-compilation. > > A while ago gcc 4.1 was released, and boasts many optimizations. > > > As the mipsel devices I use are rather slow - here comes the point of my > question: will binaries I compile with gcc 4.1 be faster than these > compiled with 3.4.4? > > I don't really care about compilation time; I'm only concerned with the > speed of the binaries made with gcc 3.4.4 and 4.1 (i.e., will gzip > compiled with gcc 4.1 compress a given file faster than gzip compressed > with gcc 3.4.4). > > I tried looking for some benchmarks, but they mainly deal with > compilation time. -- René Rebe - Rubensstr. 64 - 12157 Berlin (Europe / Germany) http://www.exactcode.de | http://www.t2-project.org +49 (0)30 255 897 45
gcc-3_4-branch frozen
Please consider the branch gcc-3_4-branch as frozen for release purpose, and after that forever. -- Gaby
Re: does gcc 4.1 generate "faster" binaries than earlier gcc versions?
Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: Perhaps the question is a bit silly, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. I'm compiling some software for a Linux/uClibc on a mipsel platform. Right now I'm using gcc 3.4.4 to do both native and cross-compilation. A while ago gcc 4.1 was released, and boasts many optimizations. As the mipsel devices I use are rather slow - here comes the point of my question: will binaries I compile with gcc 4.1 be faster than these compiled with 3.4.4? I don't really care about compilation time; I'm only concerned with the speed of the binaries made with gcc 3.4.4 and 4.1 (i.e., will gzip compiled with gcc 4.1 compress a given file faster than gzip compressed with gcc 3.4.4). Both gcc-3.4.4 and 4.1 are available to you, so in theory you could answer this question empirically (assuming that you also have the gzip sources and a file you could test the resulting gzip executable on). You don't say what version of Binutils you are using. But with recent snapshots of Binutils you can use '-Wa,-mno-shared, -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,--gc-sections' to good effect on mips[el]-linux. David Daney
