The GCC manual says that
``Eventually there may be a way of asking the compiler to choose a register
automatacally...''
Would it be possible to implement it? My idea is: add a builtin function
__builtin_choose_register(HINTS)
with the property
a) it is special in that the return value is `
The GCC manual says that
``Eventually there may be a way of asking the compiler to choose a register
automatacally...''
Would it be possible to implement it? My idea is: add a builtin function
__builtin_choose_register(HINTS)
with the property
a) it is special in that the return value is `
On 05 May 2005 17:01:05 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Rutger" == Rutger Ovidius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> RH> But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to
> RH> use an 83MB static library when a shared library is available.
>
> Rutger> Everyone on
A little humor from a long time ML lurker...
Via C3-2 Nehemiah 1GHz 512MB ddr
$ ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/home/jason/local/gcc-400 --enable-shared
\
--enable-threads=posix --disable-checking --enable-long-long
--enable-__cxa_atexit \ --enable-clocale=gnu --disable-libunwind-exceptions
--e
Hi all,
I would like to know how many stages are there ?
What's the first stage ?
Thanks
> Dale Johannesen writes:
>> Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Also, I wonder about the following example
>>
>> int const avail =
>>
>> int main() {
>> while (*(int *)&avail == Foo ())
>>do_something();
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> Seeing through the const-stripping cast is a useful optimization.
>
> It i
> From: Mark Mitchell
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 12:00 PM
>
> Now that GCC 4.0 is out the door, I've spent some time looking at the
> status of the 3.4 branch. As stated previously, I'll be doing a 3.4.4
> release, and then turning the branch over to Gaby, to focus
> exclusively on 4.0/4.1.
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 02:53 PM, Andi Vajda wrote:
I wish the same were possible on Linux and Mac OS X but I have not
been able to create a shared library that is statically linked against
libgcj.a
Should just work, though, you don't want to link -static built objects
into a .dylib, you m
On May 5, 2005, at 5:23 AM, Kai Henningsen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Sidwell) wrote on 03.05.05 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Mike Stump wrote:
int avail;
int main() {
while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0)
continue;
return 0;
}
Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinit
Hi, all,
Is there anyone familiar with the check routine
check_ext_dependent_givs defined loop.c, and give me
an example explaining why it is needed.
Canqun Yang
Creative Compiler Research Group.
National University of Defense Technology, China.
On 2005-05-06, at 04:04, Sam Lauber wrote:
There are a few diffciulties here, particularly with addressing the
open stack in an efficient way.
This problem is probably going to get a little off-topic for this
group, and it may be better to discuss this on comp.lang.forth.
I wasn't asking about the
> There are a few diffciulties here, particularly with addressing the
> open stack in an efficient way.
>
> This problem is probably going to get a little off-topic for this
> group, and it may be better to discuss this on comp.lang.forth.
I wasn't asking about the langauge implementation. What I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Sidwell) wrote on 03.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
|
| > Mike Stump wrote:
| > > int avail;
| > > int main() {
| > > while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0)
| > > continue;
| > > return 0;
| > > }
| > >
| > >
| > > Ok, s
> "Kai" == Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kai> As a QOI issue, it would be nice if such a situation caused a
Kai> warning ("ignoring volatile cast ..." or something like that).
Kai> It's rather dangerous to have the user believe that this worked
Kai> as intended when it didn't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Sidwell) wrote on 03.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mike Stump wrote:
> > int avail;
> > int main() {
> > while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0)
> > continue;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> >
> > Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops,
> "Rutger" == Rutger Ovidius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RH> But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to
RH> use an 83MB static library when a shared library is available.
Rutger> Everyone on win32 builds libgcj static, and probably wants to keep it
Rutger> that way if the
Hi,
I finally got time (darn exams!) to file a bug on this:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21405
This is the bug where two libs in the same ELF image compiled using
different C++ ABIs can interfere even when not linked to each other,
because the compiler emits symbols from the STL
Well, if you don't dynamically load classes, statically linking this 83Mb
behemoth enables you to get rid of most of it. On Windows, with MinGW, where
this is possible, I build a shared library (a python extension) that is
statically linked with libgcj.a and the resulting .dll is only 4.6MB in s
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:08:23PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
>
> > We can perhaps handle this well in the tree-aliasing code (if
> > it handled restrict at all), but it would be difficult to
> > handle this well in the RTL aliasing code.
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 13:11 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >># CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
> >
> >
> > This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
> >
> >
> >># C
Thursday, May 5, 2005, 1:16:05 PM, you wrote:
RH> On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> The savings of creating static libraries would be small if we
>> refrained from building non-PIC object files.
RH> But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to
Richard Henderson wrote:
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
The savings of creating static libraries would be small if we
refrained from building non-PIC object files.
But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to
use an 83MB static library when a sh
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> The savings of creating static libraries would be small if we
> refrained from building non-PIC object files.
But still largely useless. Who in their right mind is going to
use an 83MB static library when a shared library is avail
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
# Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
# Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
T
Dorit Naishlos wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
Items 1.4 and 2.
On May 5, 2005, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Per Bothner writes:
>>
>> We could also save time by making --disable-static the default.
>> Building static libraries is not very useful on other than
>> embedded-class systems.
> I strongly agree.
The savings of creating static librar
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Tobe Olisa wrote:
On performing a C++ compilation using g++, I get no
errors, and my codes compile and execute cleanly.
However, on using gcc - which I actually need to
use,
This sounds odd.
I get a screenful of error messages, specifically
these:
undefine
On Thursday, May 5, 2005, at 11:28 AM, ji tai wrote:
why i can't send mail?
Your email came though, so apparently you can with this account. If
there is another account you cannot send from, you will have to read
the email bounce message, it should describe why you would be unable to
send emai
why i can't send mail in the gcc mail list?
_
Do You Yahoo!?
150万曲MP3疯狂搜，带您闯入音乐殿堂
http://music.yisou.com/
美女明星应有尽有，搜遍美图、艳图和酷图
http://image.yisou.com
1G就是1000兆，雅虎电邮自助扩容！
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/ma
why i can't send mail?
_
Do You Yahoo!?
注册世界一流品质的雅虎免费电邮
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/1g/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/
On Thu, 5 May 2005, you wrote:
> Would it be ok to make use of inttypes.h in testcases of the C-testsuite?
No, it is a C99 hosted-only header which GCC does not provide and many
targets do not provide. The exception is gcc.dg/intmax_t-1.c which
deliberately uses the system inttypes.h in the h
Built compiler:
% /opt/gcc40/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8.0.0
Configured with: /Volumes/Playland/projects/gnu/gcc-stuff/gcc-4.0.0/
configure --prefix=/opt/gcc40 --enable-shared --disable-checking --
with-mpfr=/opt/local --with-gmp=/opt/local --with-gcc-version-
config.guess reports: armv4l-unknown-linux-gnu
gcc -v reports:
Using built-in specs.
Target: armv4l-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --with-cpu=strongarm
--with-pic --prefix=/home/random/gcc4 --enable-shared
--enable-threads=posix --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
Hi,
brief question:
Would it be ok to make use of inttypes.h in testcases of the C-testsuite?
By replacing, e.g., "int" by "int32_t" where necessary, one could compensate
for the implicit assumption of a hand full of testcases that int is 32 bits
so that they work also for targets where int i
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:19:07PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:40 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
> >
> > Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
> > that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:40 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
>
> Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
> that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
> according to the Wiki:
> # Structure Aliasing Part II
On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 11:01 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > # CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
>
> This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
>
> > # Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static
The libtool folks seem to be making some progress in attacking our
problems. I had forwarded them Richard's data on the libtool
performance problems.
When they have something ready to try, I hope someone on our end
who knows about this stuff (Alexandre? Java folks?) can try it out.
I'd send a U
Per Bothner writes:
>
> We could also save time by making --disable-static the default.
> Building static libraries is not very useful on other than
> embedded-class systems.
I strongly agree.
Andrew.
Original Message
>From: Ian Lance Taylor
>Sent: 05 May 2005 16:38
> "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> CONSTRUCTORS is only valid for formats such as ECOFF and XCOFF. Read
>> the bit in the ld manual more closely:
>>
>> ---
>> `CON
Tom Tromey wrote:
--enable-libgcj-multifile controls how .class files are built; ...
But what Per is talking about is how .o files are built.
Both, actually.
We could save some time by building .class and .o files at the same
time, though that requires jc1 changes.
We could also save time by mak
On May 4, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1,
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CONSTRUCTORS is only valid for formats such as ECOFF and XCOFF. Read the
> bit in the ld manual more closely:
>
> ---
> `CONSTRUCTORS'
> [ ... ] When linking object file formats which do not support
>
Satendra Pratap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can not control the disclaimer that is being appended by our office
> mailserver . Hence resending the mail from my gmail account.
Thanks.
> After all this I got down to breaking the problem into a
> compiler/linker (or my understanding) issue. Aft
> "Sam" == Sam Lauber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sam> I am experimenting with the FORTH langauge, and I would like a
Sam> front-end to be added to GCC. I think I can get most of the
Sam> parts down, but how can I generate a tree that can be used in the
Sam> code-generator?
There are some fr
Sam Lauber writes:
> I am experimenting with the FORTH langauge, and I would like a
> front-end to be added to GCC. I think I can get most of the parts
> down, but how can I generate a tree that can be used in the
> code-generator?
There are a few diffciulties here, particularly with address
I am experimenting with the FORTH langauge, and I would like a front-end to
be added to GCC. I think I can get most of the parts down, but how can I
generate a tree that can be used in the code-generator?
Samuel Lauber
--
___
Surf the Web in a faster,
Original Message
>From: Satendra Pratap
>Sent: 05 May 2005 15:23
> Hi
> I can not control the disclaimer that is being appended by our office
> mailserver . Hence resending the mail from my gmail account.
Very considerate of you, thanks!
> I am building GCC 3.2 for target=sparclet-aout
> "Ranjit" == Ranjit Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ranjit> Note that libgcj already supports an "--enable-libgcj-multifile"
Ranjit> configuration option that coarsely attempts to do the above.
Ranjit> See:
Ranjit> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00658.html
--enable-libgcj
Hi
I can not control the disclaimer that is being appended by our office
mailserver . Hence resending the mail from my gmail account.
Please help.
--
I am building GCC 3.2 for target=sparclet-aout.
Though there is no issue with C howev
"Satendra Pratap " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Please don't send mail to so many mailing lists. In particular
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not a mailing list, and I've dropped it from the CC.
> ** Legal Disclaimer
> "This email may contain confidential an
I am building GCC 3.2 for target=sparclet-aout.
Though there is no issue with C however the C++ global objects are not getting
initialized. I have posted a mail to libstdc++ mailing list and have tried all
that was suggested.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-04/msg00238.html
I have trie
The __builtin_isless, __builtin_islessequal functions are provided as
implementations of standard C99 functions 'isless', 'isgreater'. Please,
explain why gcc for mips implements them via instructions
c.lt.FMT and
c.le.FMT
instead of
c.olt.FMT and
c.ole.FMT.
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:02:18AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 09:50:49AM +0200, Martin Koegler wrote:
> > For that instruction, instantiate_virtual_regs_in_insn
> > enters if(set), then if (GET_CODE (SET_SRC (set)) == PLUS
> > is entered, where if (safe_insn_predicat
Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>>Ideally, there'd be a configure flag to control "chunking".
>
>
> Note that libgcj already supports an "--enable-libgcj-multifile"
> configuration option that coarsely attempts to do the above.
>
> See:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2003-q3/msg00658.html
I tri
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
When this goes in, I'll submit the conversion of rest_of_compilation to
use the pass manager (I don'
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> # CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
> # Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
> # Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
These two depend o
celeron_obj-gcc-3.4.3> /export/users/jordan/compile/gcc/gcc-3.4.3/config.guess
i386-pc-solaris2.8
celeron_obj-gcc-3.4.3> which gcc
/usr/local/bin/gcc
celeron_obj-gcc-3.4.3> gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc/i386-pc-solaris2.8/3.4.3/specs
Configured with: /export/users/jordan/compile/gcc/
58 matches
Mail list logo
