> What do objc.log and obj-c++.log say? I'm still seeing mysterious FC3
> (a fresh install thereof, no less) failures that no one else seems to
> be able to reproduce...
objc.log is clean, obj-c++.log is attached. This is on SuSE 9.2 Professional.
--
Eric Botcazou
obj-c++.log.gz
Description:
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
With 4.0.0, compiling a complete GNU/Linux distribution reveals bugs
in GCC, but even more bugs in C++ software that is not valid C++.
Assuming we can get the distros to fix the latter set of problems...
I don't have a good solution for this problem, ot
Eric,
What do objc.log and obj-c++.log say? I'm still seeing mysterious FC3
(a fresh install thereof, no less) failures that no one else seems to
be able to reproduce...
Thanks,
--Zem
On 9 Jun 2005, at 13.45, Eric Botcazou wrote:
When running the obj-c++ testsuite fron gcc trunk, LAST_
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| /* In order to avoid dragging in all the headers that are needed to
|declare things that gensupport.h uses, we duplicate the declaration
|of struct c_test here. (In particular we do not want to have to
|include tm.h nor rtl.h in th
Joe Buck wrote:
> With 4.0.0, compiling a complete GNU/Linux distribution reveals bugs
> in GCC, but even more bugs in C++ software that is not valid C++.
> Assuming we can get the distros to fix the latter set of problems...
I don't have a good solution for this problem, other than education.
>
Arthur Nascimento wrote:
>>Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
>>KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
>>compiling a Linux system?
> Yes, people do it all the time. Check Sourcemage, LFS and DIY:
>
> http://www.sourcemage.org
> most code and GCC documentation uses the less clear do-what-I-mean
> positions instead.
Ok, that's kinda what I figured. Thanks!
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > "section" attributes are presently storage-class-like (similar to
> > "static") and only work on declarations.
>
> Ok, I see that we set the "apply to decl" bit for "section". I guess
> the question is - why? Would it be more consistent to keep track
> "section" attributes are presently storage-class-like (similar to
> "static") and only work on declarations.
Ok, I see that we set the "apply to decl" bit for "section". I guess
the question is - why? Would it be more consistent to keep track of
where it is given, and complain if it is applie
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Consider:
>
> int __attribute__((section("foo"))) *var1;
> int * __attribute__((section("foo"))) var2;
>
> var2 is itself in section foo, and points to an int.
>
> Isn't var1 a pointer to something in section foo, and not itself in
> foo? GCC instead
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Also, remember to file papers for copyright assignment to the FSF, which is a
> prerequisite for accepting any patch.
Filing papers is a prerequisite for legally significant changes only:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legally-Significant
And, btw, it m
Consider:
int __attribute__((section("foo"))) *var1;
int * __attribute__((section("foo"))) var2;
var2 is itself in section foo, and points to an int.
Isn't var1 a pointer to something in section foo, and not itself in
foo? GCC instead treats var1 like var2.
I couldn't figure out a suitable se
2005/6/9, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> compiling a Linux system?
Yes, people do it all the time. Check Sourcemage, LFS and DIY:
http://
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050609 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050609/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050609
You'll
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:42:33PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> compiling a Linux system?
With 4.0.0, compiling a complete GNU/Linux distributi
Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have spent the last few weeks reading the gcc-patches mailing list
> and the documentation available on GCC from the Wiki and various other
> documents I have found on the Internet to try and get a feel for how
> everything works. I also have the latest
Lee Millward wrote:
I'd like to get started with helping to develop GCC but am seeking
some advice from those of you who are regular contributors on the best
approach to adopt.
I have spent the last few weeks reading the gcc-patches mailing list
and the documentation available on GCC from the W
Hi,
In the message
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg01265.html
you said
> Fifth, there is a slight difference between "const" in C and in C++.
> In C++, a const variable implicitly has an internal linkage; so a
> C++ compiler tends to optimize it out when its address is not tak
On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:43 PM, Pat Haugen wrote:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/home/pthaugen/work/src/mainline/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:12538:
warning: ‘rs6000_invalid_within_doloop’ defined but not used
Problem is Adrian changed TARGET_INSN_VALID_WITHIN_DOLOOP to
TARGET_INVAL
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Pat Haugen wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/09/2005 02:43:37 PM:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/home/pthaugen/work/src/mainline/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:12538:
warning: ârs6000_invalid_within_doloopâ defined but not used
ChangeLog looks o
> I'd like to get started with helping to develop GCC but am seeking
> some advice from those of you who are regular contributors on the best
> approach to adopt.
I think you should consider trying to fix bugs (Bugzilla has a broad choice of
these things :-), maybe front-end bugs to start with, s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 06/09/2005 02:43:37 PM:
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> /home/pthaugen/work/src/mainline/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:12538:
> warning: ‘rs6000_invalid_within_doloop’ defined but not used
ChangeLog looks odd on this, Adrian changed the name of prot
> Some of the work being carried out and posted on the gcc-patches
> mailing list makes those projects seem insignificant in comparision.
There's a wide range of ability in gcc developers, so there's a wide
range of projects to work on. They all use the same *process* so
starting with "trivial"
Scott wrote:
> Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> compiling a Linux system?
It's kind of hard to do for a new major release,
since the apps and kernel might not be ported yet,
but 4.
I'd like to get started with helping to develop GCC but am seeking
some advice from those of you who are regular contributors on the best
approach to adopt.
I have spent the last few weeks reading the gcc-patches mailing list
and the documentation available on GCC from the Wiki and various other
d
Yes, I'm still working on the idea of improving floating-point in GCC.
I've been having a number of offline discussions (for which I'm certain
you're all grateful) with folk who have concerns and suggestions for GCC
floating-point. My plan is to coallate all these thoughts, and present a
simple su
> When running the obj-c++ testsuite fron gcc trunk, LAST_UPDATED: Thu
> Jun 9 09:04:39 UTC 2005, I get a few failures like this:
Results on x86-64 as of yesterday:
=== obj-c++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/bitfield-1.mm (test for excess errors)
FAIL: obj-c++.d
Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
compiling a Linux system?
As one of those infamous "Gentoo users", I don't think it would be at
all difficult to build an automated test harness, runnin
When running the obj-c++ testsuite fron gcc trunk, LAST_UPDATED: Thu
Jun 9 09:04:39 UTC 2005, I get a few failures like this:
objc runtime: cannot find class Derived
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/bitfield-2.mm execution test
objc runtime: cannot find class Manip
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/cxx-ivars-1.mm execution test
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:12:40PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >>The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here:
> >>
> >> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-
On Jun 9, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050607/
Please test these tarballs, and let me know about showstoppers.
"make -k c
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050607/
>
> Please test these tarballs, and let me know about showstoppers.
I downloaded the gcc and gcc-g++ tarballs. x86_64 linux
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/home/pthaugen/work/src/mainline/gcc/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.c:12538:
warning: ‘rs6000_invalid_within_doloop’ defined but not used
-Pat
Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It sounds as if there should be a check in target-supports.exp for
> SSE2 support that determines whether the default test action is 'run'
> or 'compile' for i686 targets.
I am not able to code TCL/Expect. Instead, I can easily provide a patch to
make th
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 08:29:21AM -0700, Devang Patel wrote:
>
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>
> >So, the point is that you cannot select between compile-time/run-
> >time based
> >on a target triplet check, at least for this target. What do you
> >suggest?
> >All the oth
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:39:08PM +0800, Fei, Fei wrote:
> Also I want to have some document about format of foo.gcda and for.gcno
> files.
See the comments in gcc/gcov-io.h.
Janis
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 05:24:19PM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> The point is that my target is i686-pc-linux-gnu, which supports vector
> instruction (through -msse2), but whether the instructions can actually be
> run or not depends on the given processor (e.g. Pentium 3 vs Pentium 4).
> Even if
On Jun 9, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
So, the point is that you cannot select between compile-time/run-
time based
on a target triplet check, at least for this target. What do you
suggest?
All the other tests use check_vect() exactly for this reason, as
far as I
can see, so it l
Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> check_vect() is used to test whether to run the test or not. Now,
> vect.exp does the job more efficiently.
>
> 29 # If the target system supports vector instructions, the
> default action
> 30 # for a test is 'run', otherwise it's 'compile'.
On Jun 9, 2005, at 3:29 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Hello,
I have some questions about the use of check_vect() in the vectorizer
testsuite:
1) All the ifcvt tests (vect-ifcvt*) seem to require SSE2
capability to be
vectorized but they do not call check_vect(). Is this a bug? They
surely fail
Mark Mitchell wote:
> The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050607/
>
> Please test these tarballs, and let me know about showstoppers.
s390(x)-ibm-linux is looking fine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-06/msg00583.html
ht
On 2005-06-09, at 00:57, Daniel Kegel wrote:
Can somebody suggest a place to start looking for
why the libgcc_s.so built by crosstool's gcc-3.4 can't handle
exceptions from apps built by fc3's gcc-3.4?
The C++ program
#include
void foo() throw (int) {
std::cout << "In foo()" << std::endl;
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 05:05:58PM -0700, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Daniel Kegel wrote:
> >>Can somebody suggest a place to start looking for
> >>why the libgcc_s.so built by crosstool's gcc-3.4 can't handle
> >>exceptions from apps built by fc3's gcc-3.4?
> >
> >Try diffing
Hello,
i am trying to get running gcc 4.0.0 on a Sun-Blade-1000 sparc host with SunOS
5.8
for installation path (prefix) /apl/gnu/sol58/gcc/4.0.0.
(Note: i cannot install on /usr/local because its a readonly mount point)
I am using the following GNU components that allready work fine for
/apl/g
GCC 4.0.1 was successfully built on Fedora Core 3 using 3.4.4 as the
starting compiler.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] opt2]$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/opt2/gcc401
--enable-threads=posix --with-system-zlib -enable-shared
--enable-__cxa_atexit
Hello,
I have some questions about the use of check_vect() in the vectorizer
testsuite:
1) All the ifcvt tests (vect-ifcvt*) seem to require SSE2 capability to be
vectorized but they do not call check_vect(). Is this a bug? They surely fail
on my platform (which does not have SSE2).
2) The same
Greetings !
Are you facing problems in storing growing volume of documents
in the form of microfilms, microfiche, paper, audio etc ?
If so, we have various solutions to digitize them as per your needs.
Please feel free to drop us a line for your requirements.
Regards,
Navneet S
> From: Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> - How is it necessary or desirable to define that the result is undefined
>> vs. being target defined?
>
> What does C say about how a target performs an instruction?
> And why shouldn't GCC take advantage of this?
- In essence
What I am doing is to apply coverage test for xen project
(http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/), exp for hyperviser.
It's like the GCOV/LCOV thing which IBM did for Linux kernel but should
be different in hypervisor case. I will base on GCC 3.4 or above. So I
need to know some low level
Greetings !
Are you facing problems in storing growing volume of documents
in the form of microfilms, microfiche, paper, audio etc ?
If so, we have various solutions to digitize them as per your needs.
Please feel free to drop us a line for your requirements.
Regards,
Navneet S
Fei, Fei wrote:
Hi,
I am working on investigating some low level coverage tool, including
gcov. As I find out, the difference of implementation of gcc in gcov
part btw 3.3 and 3.4 is relevant. Can anyone direct me to some document
regarding this change?
I'm not sure what you mean. The new im
On 2005-06-06 19:23:06 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
> >Such algorithm usually require a very detailed control of what's
> >going on at the machine level, given current high level programming
> >languages that means using assembler.
>
> No, that's not true, you might want t
Hi,
I am working on investigating some low level coverage tool, including
gcov. As I find out, the difference of implementation of gcc in gcov
part btw 3.3 and 3.4 is relevant. Can anyone direct me to some document
regarding this change?
Thanks,
Fei
53 matches
Mail list logo
