James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IA64 bootstrap failed at abi_check stage reporting undefined
>> references from libstdc++ (see log at the bottom).
>
> This seems indirectly related to bug 20964. Mark's proposed fix to
> stop building abi-check at bootstrap time means the IA-64 boots
sorry, my english is not good,
Umm...
my project is that Connect to Gcc's front-end and My back-end
first gcc parse sorce code
next gcc make a GENERIC
next gcc change GENERIC to GIMPLE
next gcc change GIMPLE to RTL
next gcc change RTL to assemblely code
next ...
is it correct?
Umm
--- James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
> > But I don't want to
> > allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
> > symbol_ref:SI) (const_int)) in the insn.
> > How should I do that, do I need to implement
> > LEGITIMATE_CONST_P () accordingly?
>
> Try making CONST
Hello,
I am trying to reorder certain basic blocks again after
rest_of_handle_reorder_blocks() (which in turn calls
reorder_basic_blocks). What I do is this:
cfg_layout_initialize (flags);
reorder_selected_blocks(); // sets bb->rbi->next on them
/* Leave the rest as it was. */
FOR_EACH_BB (
Steven Bosscher wrote:
Bootstrap with the reload-branch dies on ia64 in stage0 while
building unwind-ia64.c:
I needed one more minor patch to quiet a warning in reload.c, and I
couldn't help but notice that reload1.c is being compiled with -Wno-error.
Thhis got me all the way to a bootstrap compa
Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For mainline I assume we'll need "GCC" to the syntax; that local
> change is small compared to making it work though.)
If you're implementing a #pragma for compatibility with another
compiler, we don't require the "GCC" prefix.
zw
I've currently got the job of implementing pragma(s) to change
optimization level in the middle of a file. This has come up a few
times before,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-06/msg01275.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-09/msg01171.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-01/msg00557.html
and so f
Steven Bosscher wrote:
../../reload-branch/gcc/unwind.inc:313: error: Attempt to delete
prologue/epilogue insn:
(insn/f 137 136 138 0 ../../reload-branch/gcc/unwind.inc:285 (set (reg:DI 33
r35)
(reg:DI 320 b0)) -1 (nil)
(nil))
Reload is using registers without setting regs_ever_live.
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > That's exactly what Geoff said. There are two relevant properties of
> > GCed memory here:
> > - Anything in GCed memory will be saved to the PCH
> > - Anything in GCed memory will be overwritten by loading the PCH.
>
>
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Geoff Keating wrote:
> >> * Any source_location values handed out before the #include
> >> that restores the gch will become invalid. They will be re-mapped
> >> to that in the pre-compiled header. Presumably that's ok - there's
> >> no declartions or
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Ajoy K Thamattoor wrote:
>
> A colleague of mine pointed out gcc gave warnings on the following
> constructs. I understand a strictly conforming implementation is allowed
> to warn on anything, but some of these are actually valid constructs.
> Wanted clarification on wh
A colleague of mine pointed out gcc gave warnings on the following
constructs.
I understand a strictly conforming implementation is allowed to warn on
anything,
but some of these are actually valid constructs. Wanted clarification on
why gcc
wants to provide sequence-point warnings on these. P
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 05:46:40PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> And what is the place of fold_builtin_1() given we have
> ccp_fold_builtin() ?
>
> Would someone please enlighten me?
>
ccp_fold_builtin was mostly an attempt to enhance CCP so that we
could propagate constant string attributes fr
On Mar 31, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
I'm wondering what ccp_fold_builtin() is for, and particularly why it
only handles BUILT_IN_STRLEN, BUILT_IN_FPUTS, BUILT_IN_FPUTS_UNLOCKED,
BUILT_IN_STRCPY and BUILT_IN_STRNCPY.
Why were these builtins chosen to live in this function and not
other
I'm wondering what ccp_fold_builtin() is for, and particularly why it
only handles BUILT_IN_STRLEN, BUILT_IN_FPUTS, BUILT_IN_FPUTS_UNLOCKED,
BUILT_IN_STRCPY and BUILT_IN_STRNCPY.
Why were these builtins chosen to live in this function and not
others?
And what is the place of fold_builtin_1() give
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> That's exactly what Geoff said. There are two relevant properties of
GCed memory here:
- Anything in GCed memory will be saved to the PCH
- Anything in GCed memory will be overwritten by loading the PCH.
So the corrollary: After a restore any pointers from non-gc'd
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 01:25:45PM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Geoff Keating wrote:
> >> * Any source_location values handed out before the #include
> >>that restores the gch will become invalid. They will be re-mapped
> >>to that in the pre-compiled header. Presumably that's ok - there's
> >>no
Geoff Keating wrote:
>> * Any source_location values handed out before the #include
that restores the gch will become invalid. They will be re-mapped
to that in the pre-compiled header. Presumably that's ok - there's
no declartions or expressions in the main file at that point, or
the restore wo
On 30/03/2005, at 10:36 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
* Note that we compile the gch file as it were the main file
- i.e. it has the MAIN_FILE_P property, and it is not included
from any file. This means the restored line_table is slightly
anomalous. One solution to this is when we generate the gch file
Vinayak Ghate wrote:
Do we have GNU toolchain for blackfin processor?? Can anybody help me out in
this regard??
There is no blackfin port in the FSF GCC sources. However, Analog
Devices does maintain some gcc ports for their targets, and may
contribute them to us in the future. See
http://www.
On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin.
It fails in stage1.
I can see the problem also... :-(
I doubt if the perso
On Mar 31, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin. It
fails in stage1.
I can see the problem also... :-(
I doubt if the person that broke it knows about it. It was working
just
On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin.
It fails in stage1.
I can see the problem also... :-(
I doubt if the person that broke it knows about it. It was working
just a short time ago (beginning of the week?).
I
Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Being conservative I'd go for my patch on 4.0 and yours (if verified) on
mainline.
I'm fine with that. Have you actually written a patch yet? I don't see
one in the bug report or in gcc-patches.
I found a complication with my patch (string constants) when
bootstrapping, a
Levent Erbuke wrote:
Is there a tool that retrieve which version of gcc was used to compile a
lib or anything else ?
It depends on the target, but use of strings in the .comment section is
fairly common. Try
objdump --section=.comment --full-contents
There will be one string for every object f
Zagorodnev, Grigory wrote:
IA64 bootstrap failed at abi_check stage reporting undefined references
from libstdc++ (see log at the bottom).
This seems indirectly related to bug 20964. Mark's proposed fix to stop
building abi-check at bootstrap time means the IA-64 bootstrap should
now succeed.
Sanjiv Kumar Gupta wrote:
But I don't want to
allow expressions like (const:SI (plus:SI
symbol_ref:SI) (const_int)) in the insn.
How should I do that, do I need to implement
LEGITIMATE_CONST_P () accordingly?
Try making CONSTANT_ADDRESS_P reject the value.
Though it still isn't clear why you are ge
Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin. It
fails in stage1.
Is this known?
I haven't seen an ld64 crash myself in a while, but have
been immersing myself in GDB sources lately. Perhaps other
changes to GCC are causing unexpected types of symbols
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin. It
fails in stage1.
Is this known?
- Thanks, fariborz
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/local/powerpc-apple-darwin8.0.0/bin/ -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc-apple-darwin8.0.0/include -isystem
/usr/local/powerpc-apple-darwin8.0.0/sys-include
-L/Vo
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 07:33:53PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Is the manual wording just slightly vague here, and both .data and .bss
> are regarded as covered by the phrase "the data section of the object file"?
Yes.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
According to the manual,
--snip--
`-fno-common'
In C, allocate even uninitialized global variables in the data
section of the object file, rather than generating them as common
blocks.
--snip--
W
On Mar 30, 2005, at 10:36 PM, Per Bothner wrote:
* Note that we compile the gch file as it were the main file
- i.e. it has the MAIN_FILE_P property, and it is not included
from any file.
Another side effect, it bypasses system header check.
gcc -x c-header /usr/include/stdio.h
Here, stdio.h is
Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
> I would like to know if the FASTCALL calling convention will be
> supported by gcc on linux sometime soon, I need this for some
> software I'm writing.
It already is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.4.3/gcc/Function-Attributes.html
e.g.
int __attribute((fast
Hello,
I would like to know if the FASTCALL calling convention will be
supported by gcc on linux sometime soon, I need this for some software
I'm writing. Please cc any answers to me as I'm not subscribed to the
list, thanks in advance for any answerers.
Ivan.
IA64 bootstrap failed at abi_check stage reporting undefined references
from libstdc++ (see log at the bottom).
That happens because of missed bodies of some compiler-generate
functions. For example, minimal reproducer listed below fails to link
with xgcc, reporting undefined reference from B::vt
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/03/2005 16:55:52:
> On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> > modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> > on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled.
On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
> Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
> compiled
On Mar 31, 2005 03:56 PM, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
> modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
> on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
> Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
> compiled
Hi, all
This patch will fix doloop_register_get defined in
modulo-sched.c, and let the program of PI caculation
on IA-64 be successfully modulo scheduled. On 1GHz
Itanium-2, it costs just 3.128 seconds to execute when
compiled with "-fmodulo-shced -O3" turned on, while
5.454 seconds whithout
Hi Mark,
First of all I would like this discussion to be on the GCC mailing list; so
I am CCing the GCC mailing list (I hope this is OK with all the others).
"Davis, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 31/03/2005 00:23:02:
> Mostafa & Gerald,
>
...
> It was mentioned that you folks had recentl
Hi,
I am trying to make a small modification to a local copy of gcc (In
particular the g++ front end) that will help me in documenting
exceptions that can be thrown by functions. I have had a look at most of
the gcc documentation i could find and it has been helpful, but i am
currently stuck in
41 matches
Mail list logo
