Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2013-02-14)
Hello, On 02/14/2013 11:30 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: Status == GCC trunk remains in release branch mode, with only regression fixes and documentation changes allowed. is there a chance to get this committed to GCC 4.8 even if its a P4 bug http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html or should I focus on GCC 4.9 for this regression (this patch is available since October 2012)? -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 189 47 41-16 Fax : +49 89 189 47 41-09 E-Mail : sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de PGP : Public key available on request. Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.
GCC compiler for ANDROID Nexus7
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.n0n3m4.droidc&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5uMG4zbTQuZHJvaWRjIl0.From Jerome Huck Good afternoon. There seems to be some versions of GCC for ANDROID C/C++/Pascal working or even Fortran, see the attached links. Can we hope one day to have some official release? I make some scientific code and GCC is fun because we have performances and do not need to rewrite codes when wriiten in Fortran, C... see the results at the end of this email. Best regards. Jerome Huck. links : https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.n0n3m4.droidc&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5uMG4zbTQuZHJvaWRjIl0. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.n0n3m4.gcc4droid&feature=more_from_developer reliable Fortran on android ??? http://specificimpulses.blogspot.fr/2012/08/something-borrowed-android-fortran.html http://specificimpulses.blogspot.fr/2011/10/android-fortran-step-by-step-part-1.html http://specificimpulses.blogspot.fr/2011/01/my-android-speaks-fortran-yours-can-too.html Here are some results from a simple/small CFD(Computational Fluid Dynamics) code : 2686 ms NEXUS 7 JAVA AIDE 1618 ms NEXUS 7 JAVA AIDE Dexer optimizations 1563 ms NEXUS 7 Eclipse Java 150 ms for JAVA JDK 7U10 WINDOWS X-64 on a WINDOWS 7 PC I3 2,1GHz 78 ms GNU GCC C99 on a WINDOWS 7 PC I3 2,1GHz 62,39 ms GNU FORTRAN 6.2383E-02 sec on a WINDOWS 7 PC I3 2,1GHz 1,02 s for Pypy 2.0 on a WINDOWS 7 PC I3 2,1GHz 6,78 s for Python 3.3 on a WINDOWS 7 PC I3 2,1GHz
Re: libsanitizer and qemu compatibility
On 14 February 2013 05:24, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: > Hi Christophe, > > Are you talking about ARM Linux? Yes. > It will be easier for us (asan developers) to fix this upstream first. > Could you please file a bug at https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/ ? OK, just entered as #160 >> ** shadow start 0x1000 shadow_end 0x3fff >> ==30022== Process memory map follows: >> 0x-0x8000 >> 0x8000-0x9000/home/lyon/src/tests/sanitizer.armhf >> 0x9000-0x0001 >> 0x0001-0x00011000/home/lyon/src/tests/sanitizer.armhf > > 0x00011000-0xf4f5 << where is this crazy mapping come from? > I don't know :-) It's probably a qemu feature Christophe.
Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2013-02-14)
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > GCC trunk remains in release branch mode, with only regression fixes > > and documentation changes allowed. > > is there a chance to get this committed to GCC 4.8 even if its a P4 bug > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html > > or should I focus on GCC 4.9 for this regression (this patch is available > since October 2012)? Fixes for any regressions can go in, without regard to the priority of the regressions (although if a regression fix seems particularly risky, the priority may be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to defer it). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2013-02-14)
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >> > GCC trunk remains in release branch mode, with only regression fixes >> > and documentation changes allowed. >> >> is there a chance to get this committed to GCC 4.8 even if its a P4 bug >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg00544.html >> >> or should I focus on GCC 4.9 for this regression (this patch is available >> since October 2012)? > > Fixes for any regressions can go in, without regard to the priority of the > regressions (although if a regression fix seems particularly risky, the > priority may be a relevant consideration in deciding whether to defer it). You need to work with Alan to have the patch approved and committed. The rs6000 bits are okay with me. Thanks, David
Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?
On 01/28/2013 02:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 01/23/2013 01:48 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote: What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the moment? I need to go back over that section, but I think it's just inaccurate. I've now updated the page. Jason
make_decl_one_only and inlining
Hi, We recently got a bug report for the GCC D compiler frontend which shows that we currently don't inline any templated functions. The reason seems to be that decl_replaceable_p always returns true for D template functions. We currently just mark such template function instances using make_decl_one_only but this seems to prevent inlining. I've tried to set DECL_COMDAT additionally and this fixes the inlining problem. Unfortunately it also leads to many undefined reference errors as we probably don't generate the template instances in all translation units as we should. So what's the best/preferred way to put out template function instances so that: * Instances in different objects files are merged * GCC can still inline such functions * Force the instances to be put out, even if they seem to be not used How does the C++ frontend handle this? Thanks, Johannes.
Re: make_decl_one_only and inlining
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > We recently got a bug report for the GCC D compiler frontend which shows that > we > currently don't inline any templated functions. The reason seems to be that > decl_replaceable_p always returns true for D template functions. Why is that? decl_replaceable_p is supposed to be true for a function that may be replaced by an entirely different function at runtime. This is mainly to implement the correct semantics for weak functions. You can't inline a weak function, but at runtime the runtime linker might have resolved the weak function to something completely different. > So what's the best/preferred way to put out template function instances so > that: > * Instances in different objects files are merged > * GCC can still inline such functions > * Force the instances to be put out, even if they seem to be not used Set DECL_COMDAT. You said that didn't work but you didn't fully explain why. A DECL_COMDAT function should be output in every object file in which it is referenced. Ian
gcc-4.6-20130215 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20130215 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20130215/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_6-branch revision 196095 You'll find: gcc-4.6-20130215.tar.bz2 Complete GCC MD5=44d776e95f8ef6a4a0cc6fe6f9b99698 SHA1=9b4d65dbe72de2daa10b28052d1bc200915bcde0 Diffs from 4.6-20130208 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.6 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.
Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?
Thanks, looking much better now. Will gcc 4.8 contain the stdatomic.h header (i am a little confused about it, is it a standard header?)? Am 15.02.2013 18:07, schrieb Jason Merrill: > On 01/28/2013 02:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 01:48 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote: >>> What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the >>> moment? >> >> I need to go back over that section, but I think it's just inaccurate. > > I've now updated the page. > > Jason > >
Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?
2013/2/16 Franz Fehringer: > Thanks, looking much better now. > i am a little confused about it, is it a standard header? Hi, Yes: > If the macro constant __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__(C11) is defined by the compiler, > the header , the keyword _Atomic, and all of the names listed > here are not provided. http://en.cppreference.com/w/c/atomic -- Regards, niXman ___ Dual-target(32 & 64-bit) MinGW compilers for 32 and 64-bit Windows: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwbuilds/ ___ Another online IDE: http://liveworkspace.org/
