> Is that a regression though? builtin-apply4.c is a new test.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg00299.html
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:49:39AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> sparc-sun-solaris2.9 is OK for C/C++/Objective-C/Ada/F95, except
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/builtin-apply4.c execution test
Is that a regression though? builtin-apply4.c is a new test.
Jakub
> Giovanni Bajo writes:
>> Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I do think the C++ FE needs fixing before Diego's change gets merged,
>>> though. I can make the change, but not instantly. If someone files
>>> a PR, and assigns to me, I'll get to it at some not-too-distant
>>> point.
>>
Eric Botcazou wrote:
The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from:
/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050410/
on the usual gcc.gnu.org mirrors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html
I would like to know whether or not we have achieved the objective
aspects of the release criteria:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0
> The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from:
>
> /pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050410/
>
> on the usual gcc.gnu.org mirrors:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html
>
> I would like to know whether or not we have achieved the objective
> aspects of the release criter
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:26:01PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
> 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/binutil
The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from:
/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050410/
on the usual gcc.gnu.org mirrors:
http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html
I would like to know whether or not we have achieved the objective
aspects of the release criteria:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/criteria.html
for
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 Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Karl Berry wrote:
> Catering to XHTML's stupidity. I mentioned it in:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#HTML-Xref-Link-Basics
> viz.
> One exception: the algorithm for node name expansion prefixes the
> string `g_t' when the node name
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:23 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> "This compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77. We assume
> >> distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful."
> >
> > Slightly corrected for grammar:
> >
> >
Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "This compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77. We assume
>> distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful."
>
> Slightly corrected for grammar:
>
> "We assume that distributors will provide access to g77 as long until
>
Eric Christopher wrote:
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 21:13 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
Toon Moene wrote:
I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 21:13 +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Toon Moene wrote:
>
> > I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
> > that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
> > we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that
Toon Moene wrote:
> I'm still thinking about the text to warn gfortran users for the fact
> that this compiler at present doesn't cover all of Fortran 77 - and that
> we assume distributors to provide access to g77 as long as that's useful.
What about
"This compiler at present doesn't cover al
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:52:01PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Hi,
| > | >
| > | > The following is fr
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050410 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050410/
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: -D2005-04-10 17:43 UTC
You'll
This is the beta release of binutils 2.16.90.0.1 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2005 0408 in CVS on sources.redhat.com plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
The new i386/x86_64 assemblers no longer accept instructions for moving
between a segment register and a 32bit memory location
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following is from libibtery.h
>
>/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1. If it is
> undefined, we haven't run the autoconf check so provide the
> declaration without arguments. If it is 0, we checked and failed
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:52:01PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | >
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > The following is from libibtery.h
> | >
> | >/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > Hi,
| >
| > The following is from libibtery.h
| >
| >/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1. If it is
| > undefined, we haven't run the autoconf
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The following is from libibtery.h
>
>/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1. If it is
> undefined, we haven't run the autoconf check so provide the
> declaration without arguments. I
Hi,
The following is from libibtery.h
/* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1. If it is
undefined, we haven't run the autoconf check so provide the
declaration without arguments. If it is 0, we checked and failed
to find the declaration so provide a fully
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please treat the GCC 4.0 branch as frozen as of this time. All
non-documentation changes now need my explicit approval.
I'll spin prerelease bits soon.
It's a pity a couple of important gfortran bug fixes "didn't make it",
but work is under way to get them applied to 4.0.1.
On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 01:13 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Should I replace ",1" by ",0" or is something more ambitious needed?
>
> I tried that on ia64, and the result was a miscompiled stage2 compiler.
Same thing on x86, I killed stage3 gnat1 af
There have been lately a discussion on the GCC mailing list and other
forums about the efficiency of SMS (the current implementation of software
pipelining in GCC). One of the issues that currently limit SMS is the lack
of loop carried memory dependency information. The long term solution for
25 matches
Mail list logo
