Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
Any retro people out there still trying to run SunOS 4.x?
Richard K., as evidenced by the missing Reference:s headers in his
mails. But I doubt he's actually bootstrapping GCC on that machine.
:-}
No, he does not do anything but use the (
Georg Bauhaus wrote:
Though what GCC does for a compilation unit with Ada's pragma
Optimize(Off); inside it is close to what some users seem to be wanting
in C.
GCC does complain about an attempt to translate the program below
with optimization turned on:
$ gcc -gnatv -c -O2 opt.adb
...
2.
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 passes, while theoretically
orthogonal, are not entirely orthogonal in practice, and that truni
Robert Dewar wrote:
A little note is that Ada has a pragma Opimize that would make
use of this feature (it's currently pretty much ignored).
Though what GCC does for a compilation unit with Ada's pragma
Optimize(Off); inside it is close to what some users seem to be wanting
in C.
GCC does complain
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Last year CodeSourcery had a contract to speed up the C++ front end at
>> -O0, and we found that small linear reductions in memory usage
>> corresponded directly to small linear reductions in time usage, at
>> about a 2:1 ratio (so
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I wasn't aware that people were exclusively concentrating on small
linear gains.
Since no one said they were, and since they aren't, it is not surprising
that you would be unaware of this non-fact :-) I didn't say people were
exclusively concentrating on such gains by any m
Zack Weinberg wrote:
Last year CodeSourcery had a contract to speed up the C++ front end at
-O0, and we found that small linear reductions in memory usage
corresponded directly to small linear reductions in time usage, at
about a 2:1 ratio (so 1% less memory -> 0.5% less time). That
wouldn't be wo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 08:48 AM, Stefan Strasser wrote:
> > if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a _very_
> > long time swapping
>
> Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
$2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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 passes, while theoretically orthogonal,
> are not entirely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 02.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While I know a bit of third-wrld, I have also been working in some western
> European countries for a sufficiant time to say that, well, far many real
> machines used there for work in univeristies and research labs
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
> Any retro people out there still trying to run SunOS 4.x?
Richard K., as evidenced by the missing Reference:s headers in his
mails. But I doubt he's actually bootstrapping GCC on that machine.
:-}
Gerald
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, James E Wilson wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> OK, so I know this is not a popular subject, but can we *please* stop
>> working on loop.c and focus on getting the new RTL and tree loop passes
>> to do what we want?
> I don't think anyone is objecting to this. [...]
> I would
Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've been converting the ppc options to use the .opt machinery, and
> am confused as to how to approach subtargets.
>
> What's the deal with these?
>
> I need options only for certain subtargets. For example, aix.h has
> some options that should not be
> | But I doubt that projects to buy small linear gains in memory usage
> | are mainstream very worthwhile in the long run (non-linear gains are
> | *always* worth going after by contrast).
>
> I wasn't aware that people were exclusively concentrating on small
> linear gains.
although don't know
Steve, Toon,
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve Kargl wrote:
> Jim,
>
> Thanks for the detailed explanation of how GCC options work.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Toon Moene wrote:
> Ditto. Jim, are you reading from some documentation about this option
> processing that I couldn't find ? I've spend hours and
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But I doubt that projects to buy small linear gains in memory usage
> are mainstream very worthwhile in the long run (non-linear gains are
> *always* worth going after by contrast).
Last year CodeSourcery had a contract to speed up the C++ front end at
-
A little note is that Ada has a pragma Opimize that would make
use of this feature (it's currently pretty much ignored).
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| countries with obscure machines that escaped from Middle Age.
| > While I know a bit of third-wrld, I have also been working in some
| > western
| > European countries for a sufficiant time to say that, well, far many real
| >
Sam Lauber wrote:
if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a
_very_ long time swapping
Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte.
You don't know whay swapping is? Shifting memory over from physical RAM
to the hard drive when not in use, and putting it back in RAM w
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
countries with obscure machines that escaped from Middle Age.
While I know a bit of third-wrld, I have also been working in some western
European countries for a sufficiant time to say that, well, far many real
machines used there for work in univeristies and research labs
Russell Shaw wrote:
Memory bloat is a problem for embedded systems. Attitudes about just "buy
another gigabyte" is why i use C for everything for speed, portability,
compactness, and conciseness of design.
For all those hoping to do gcc compilations on their wrist watches :-)
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050403 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050403/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 CVS branch
with the following options: -D2005-04-03 17:43 UTC
You'll
Hi all,
I tried --enable-mapped-location on recent snapshots and wonder if that is
intended to build:
../configure --enable-languages="c,c++" --disable-checking
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-mapped-location
and a make yields:
../../gcc/tree-cfg.c: In function `remove_bb':
../../gcc/tree-cfg
Am Sonntag, 3. April 2005 17:24 schrieb Peter Barada:
> >When trying to figure out the origin of the problem, I have realized so
> > far, that it is obviously stems from a problem during my local configure
> > process: The xgcc I'm just building tries to pipe the asm result through
> > my "host-as"
>When trying to figure out the origin of the problem, I have realized so far,
>that it is obviously stems from a problem during my local configure process:
>The xgcc I'm just building tries to pipe the asm result through my "host-as"
>instead of the "target-as". I will myself have to look for w
When trying to figure out the origin of the problem, I have realized so far,
that it is obviously stems from a problem during my local configure process:
The xgcc I'm just building tries to pipe the asm result through my "host-as"
instead of the "target-as". I will myself have to look for why co
Björn Haase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> -c ../../gcc/gcc/config/avr/libgcc.S -c libgcc/./_mulqi3.s
^^^
Is this "-c" a typo? It surely doesn't come from mklibgcc.in.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfe
Hi,
when checking out the gcc tree this morning for a clean rebuild and regular
testsuite run, I observed that bootstrap failed. It seems that it is related
to some preprocessor issue:
1.) Problem occures when assembling the libgcc library. First failing
operation is
/home/bmh/gnucvs/head/bui
28 matches
Mail list logo
