Jeyasankar Kottalam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Are the FSF and GCC interested in mentoring students under Google's Summer
> of
> Code?
>
> * What projects would the GCC maintainers like to see done for Google's Summer
> of Code? Anything at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/ ? Or do you have specific
> projec
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:53:05PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-05-31 11:39:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > >Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC.
> >
> > Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do:
> >
> >
Hi,
* Are the FSF and GCC interested in mentoring students under Google's Summer of
Code?
* What projects would the GCC maintainers like to see done for Google's Summer
of Code? Anything at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/ ? Or do you have specific
project suggestions?
Thanks,
-Jey Kottalam
I tried doing bootstrap builds of GCC 3.3.6 and GCC 3.4.4 but these
builds fail due to the absence of the 'c++filt' tool. I noticed in
the libiberty Makefile that there is some comment about this tool
being moved to a different binutils package, which I have not
installed on my machine.
I built the released gcc 4.0 C compiler on Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.1
(Darwin 8.1).
I did a make bootstrap of just the C language on a Power Macintosh G5
Dual 2 GHz machine and it built without incident.
% ./config.guess
powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0
The compiler used to built 4.0 is the one shipp
On 2005-05-31, at 19:14, Dave Korn wrote:
Speak up now, or we're going to send the firing squad.
Just don't let them use x87 intrinsics to calculate the line of
fire, or
we'd all better run!
Some remarkable time ago I was exposed to a 12 bit "RISC" CPU with
two banks
of 4k ferrite
D
and do not see this problem. Can you XFAIL forall_3.f90 and
see if the problem persists?
amd64-*-freebsd
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes7004
# of unexpected successes 8
# of expected failures 35
# of unsupported tests 16
obj41/gcc/
On 2005-06-01 00:58:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> You are mistaken.
No, I don't see any problem.
> #include
> #include
>
> long double one = 1.0;
> long double one_plus_eps;
>
> int
> main (void)
> {
> long double one_plus_eps;
>
> one_plus_eps = one + LDBL_EPSILON;
> assert (one !
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050531 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050531/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050531
You'll
Right now on powerpc-darwin with the following versions:
Expect version is 5.38.0
Tcl version is 8.4
Framework version is1.4.4
I get the following failure in the gfortran-
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/Users/pinskia/src/local3/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.fortran-torture/
execute
Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Changing the rounding precision is. The C standard defines how you
> can change the rounding direction, but not the rounding precision.
Back in the early 1990's, work on solving this inadequacy was being done
by the X3J11 Numerical C Extensions Group. Rex Jaeschke was the
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > The "long double" type is required, bu
On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be
> >> > extended precisio
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be
>> > extended precision.
>>
>> But it can be.
>
> So what?
You can take advantage
On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be
> > extended precision.
>
> But it can be.
So what?
> > Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required,
> > s
On 2005-05-31 11:39:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC.
>
> Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do:
>
> 2004-02-07 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * config/rs6000/t-lin
On 2005-05-31 19:30:48 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> IEEE 754 is not mandated by the ISO C{90,99} standards and there are indeed
> platforms where float and double are not using IEEE 754 single resp. double
> precision formats.
But without IEEE-754 support, the ISO C99 standard is just a big joke
On 31/05/2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
"Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Geoffrey> Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that
part of the problem is that the documentation for
-funsafe-math-opti
I've tried removing REG_EQUAL notes altogether unless we
know that the source of the move is function invariant, and got
identical assembler for all the EEMBC tests as without the patch.
Likewise for an entire sh4-elf multilibbed libgcc, libstdc++-v3
and newlib build. I think it is therefore rea
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be
> extended precision.
But it can be.
> Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required,
> since you are already working with an extension.
The use of long double is
On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC.
Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do:
2004-02-07 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* config/rs6000/t-linux64 (LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA): Add darwin-
ldouble.c.
powerpc64-*-
The Business Analyst position in Milwaukee, WI that you applied for was
only recently inactivated.
Please return to Dice and apply for a different position posted by
Genesis10, and we will immediately review your resume.
Original Message
>From: Daniel Berlin
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:22
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 18:12 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> I had an even stupider version of this whole debate a little while ago
>> on IIRC the binutils mailing list, where someone refused to enter a bug
>> report into bug
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:20:49PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a
> > > difference between source code portability and "re
On 2005-05-31 09:56:31 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
> >get correct results for some application, the same application run on
> >PowerPC, where there is no extended p
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 18:12 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Daniel Berlin
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
>
> > On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> >> Original Message
> >>> From: Russ Allbery
> >>> Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
>
> >>> There are many
On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a
> > difference between source code portability and "result" portability.
>
> But making round to double the default makes it o
On 2005-05-31 10:30:52 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> If you follow Standard C, you are guaranteed source code portability, in
> the program compiles and produce the "same" results with any Standard C
> compiler.
>
> When we start talking about floating-point code, however, we enter the
> realm
On 2005-05-31 16:07:53 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PR
Original Message
>From: Mike Stump
>Sent: 31 May 2005 17:57
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
>> get correct results for some application, the same application run on
>> PowerPC, where t
Original Message
>From: Daniel Berlin
>Sent: 31 May 2005 18:00
> On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Original Message
>>> From: Russ Allbery
>>> Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
>>> There are many on-line newspapers that I refuse to read articles from,
>>> for example,
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Ross Smith wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from
that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of
filling an invalid report or a duplicate.
I strongly suspect you're mista
On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to
get correct results for some application, the same application run on
PowerPC, where there is no extended precision
? News to me! Ok, who removed it? Speak up
Original Message
>From: Jonathan Wakely
>Sent: 31 May 2005 17:06
> On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0700, dk zhou wrote:
>
>> I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
>> can i get it?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gcc+for+windows%22&btnG=Search
>
> you p
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 17:52 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Russ Allbery
> >Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
>
>
> > It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
> > login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
> > pause
Original Message
>From: Russ Allbery
>Sent: 31 May 2005 04:51
> It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
> login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
> pause and consider before I create an account at a web site. There are
>
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0700, dk zhou wrote:
> I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
> can i get it?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gcc+for+windows%22&btnG=Search
you probably want MinGW
jon
I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how
can i get it?
thank you!
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> No, this is not portable,
>>
>> Sure they are, since they are required since C89.
>>
>> You can use to find that out. That's what portability is
>> about.
>
> "Portability" means different things to different people. The
At approximately 2pm EST, we will be upgrading mysql on sourceware from
version 3.x to version 4.x.
This will cause a short amount of downtime in gcc.gnu.org and
sources.redhat.com Bugzilla and GCC's wiki (< 30 minutes).
--Dan
On Mon, 2005-05-23 at 10:47 +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/05/2005 18:17:45:
>
> > Yes, it looks quite reasonable. Please go ahead with the full testing
> > cycle and consider the patch pre-approved once complete.
> >
> I have changed the p
Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> No, this is not portable,
>
> Sure they are, since they are required since C89.
>
> You can use to find that out. That's what portability is
> about.
"Portability" means different things to different people. There's a
difference between source code portability and "res
> I am doing a study about compilers. I have to monitor many existing
> compilers and benchmark them. After I have to modify and optimize the
> 'back-end' part for multithreads models.
>
You should go look at Scott's site (http://www.coyotegulch.com/) as he
does a lot of benchmarking.
> I have
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > But as I said on my page, this isn't m
Dear Sir,
My name is Thomas Bernard. I am working as a Master Student for the UvA
(Universitat Van Amsterdam) in the section of Computers Systems
Architecture of the Informatics Institute.
I am doing a study about compilers. I have to monitor many existing
compilers and benchmark them. After
On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
> >> > who really need *e
> "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Geoffrey> Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that
>> part of the problem is that the documentation for
>> -funsafe-math-optimizations is so vague as to have no
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
>> > who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
>> > precision
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
I'd say this *is* PR21828: note that the variables whose
type is unknown are global variables in C code compiled
with -O2 ...
Oh, of course. I was confusing with the first part:
Run till exit from #0 mangle_macro_name ([snip]) at
../..
On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should
> > not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very
> > bad implementation anyway).
>
> I have read the sections you mention,
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
I'd say this *is* PR21828: note that the variables whose
type is unknown are global variables in C code compiled
with -O2 ...
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
Linux on zSeries Development
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
> > who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
> > precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but ext
On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
> > According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should
> > not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very
> > bad implementation anyway).
>
> I have read the sections you mention,
On 2005-05-30 11:51:59 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> The fact that trigonometric functions can extended beyond 2D geometry in
> no way invalidates their use in their original domain. I've written many
> 2D and 3D applications over the years without need for a sine outside
> the range [0, 2*PI]
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users
> who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding
> precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but extended
> precision isn't portable anyway.
What about LDBL_*
Scott Robert Ladd writes:
> chris jefferson wrote:
> > I would like to say yes, I disagree that this should be true. By your
> > argument, why isn't sin(pow(2.0,90.0)+1) == sin(6.153104..)? Also, how
> > the heck do you intend to actually calculate that value? You can't just
> > keep subtracti
On 2005-05-30 22:18:14 +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
[...]
> >First there is a bug in GCC concerning casts and assignments
> >(see ISO/IEC 9899: 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2).
> >
> >But even this were fixed, many users would still complain.
> >That's why I think that the
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> On 2005-05-30 16:12:07 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Haren Visavadia wrote:
> > >--- Robert Dewar wrote:
> >
> > >I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases.
> >
> > why? You have some inaccurate model of computation,
> > which in the absence of switches,
chris jefferson wrote:
> I would like to say yes, I disagree that this should be true. By your
> argument, why isn't sin(pow(2.0,90.0)+1) == sin(6.153104..)? Also, how
> the heck do you intend to actually calculate that value? You can't just
> keep subtracting multiples of 2*pi from pow(2.0, 90.0)
On 2005-05-30 16:12:07 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Haren Visavadia wrote:
> >--- Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> >I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases.
>
> why? You have some inaccurate model of computation,
> which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed.
> Floating-point semantics ar
This is correct. Note that this is only valid for objects, in
expressions intermediate values may lay outside the range of the type.
The question was about expressions, not objects, and I disagree with you:
intermediate values may not lay outside the range of the type. Gimplification
chan
On May 30, 2005, at 16:50, Florian Weimer wrote:
I'll try to phrase it differently: If you access an object whose bit
pattern does not represent a value in the range given by
TYPE_MIN_VALUE .. TYPE_MAX_VALUE of the corresponding type, does this
result in erroneous execution/undefined behavior?
chris jefferson writes:
> Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
>
> >Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Heck, I can plot trajectories on a sphere that do not follow great circles,
> >>and that extend over 360 degrees in longitude. I don't see why I should be
> >>restricted from doing that.
> >>
> >
> Yes; in fact 'main' is even superfluous. Just compile
>
> int var;
>
> with -S -O2 -g on gcc 3.4 and 4.0 and look at the resulting
> assembler file, the difference is quite obvious ...
Maybe this is responsible for part of PR21828?
Paolo
64 matches
Mail list logo
