John Carter wrote:
I'm trying to create a cross compiler hosted on i386 linux targetting an
embedded arm thumb device with thumb-interworking on.
You need to the modify gcc-4.X/gcc/config/arm/t-arm-elf file to enable multilib for thumb
interworking before building gcc. For gcc 4.0 targetting e
On Jun 21, 2005, at 11:53 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote:
Running "make check-g++" for GCC 4.0.0 fails any tests that need to
link on powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0, with error messages such as:
/usr/bin/ld: warning suggest use of -bind_at_load, as lazy binding may
result in
errors or different sym
Running "make check-g++" for GCC 4.0.0 fails any tests that need to
link on powerpc-apple-darwin7.9.0, with error messages such as:
/usr/bin/ld: warning suggest use of -bind_at_load, as lazy binding may
result in
errors or different symbols being used
symbol _tanl used from dynamic library
--- "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>写道:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Feng Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on
> one
> > statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
> >
> > I tried:
> > { dg-warning "Warning1" "Warning2" }
> > a
Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050621 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050621/
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_4-20050621
You'll
> I also changed the error message to read:
>
> "... is not supported in this release"
>
> Which might work and we can, of course, remove the error message if that
> ever changes :)
>
> OK?
I have no objections, not that I'm the release manager.
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 15:31 -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 18:24 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> > > attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> > > like this for mainline too?
> >
> > We
I'm trying to create a cross compiler hosted on i386 linux targetting an
embedded arm thumb device with thumb-interworking on.
When I attempt to link my app which has some ARM
code in it (hence the need for interwork) I get this message...
/opt/gcc4thumb/lib/gcc/arm-elf/4.1.0/../../../../arm
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 18:24 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> > attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> > like this for mainline too?
>
> We've historically put a lot of effort into making "./configure" work,
>
> Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> like this for mainline too?
We've historically put a lot of effort into making "./configure" work,
so I'd hate to snub anyone willing to work on it. Perhaps an "a
>
> If someone wishes to submit a patch for that bug for 4.0 branch, I expect
> it could be considered for 4.0.2 but might be too risky for 4.0.1 now.
>
Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and attempting
to build in the source directory. Did we want something like this for
hi,
This is to follow up on a patch for PR8972 [1] submitted by me on the
gcc-patches list some time back. it would be really nice if someone
could have a look at the patch and commit it in. Presently all the
execute tests time out because of the bug in code generation for
multiple shift operations
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Feng Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on one
> statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
>
> I tried:
> { dg-warning "Warning1" "Warning2" }
> and
> { dg-warning "Warning1" 8}
> { dg-warning "Warning2" 8}
> 8 is t
On Jun 21, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Frederic Stark wrote:
Timothy J. Wood wrote:
[crunch]
The code works correctly under Mac OS X.
I just checked under linux/gcc 3.4 and the code works fine there.
Maybe this is a gcc 3.2 specific problem. I'll check gcc 3.4 windows
one of those days.
It is a
Timothy J. Wood wrote:
[crunch]
The code works correctly under Mac OS X.
I just checked under linux/gcc 3.4 and the code works fine there. Maybe
this is a gcc 3.2 specific problem. I'll check gcc 3.4 windows one of
those days.
The Apple runtime doesn't have this design choice, so it can'
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Mattias Karlsson:
Given:
void f(void)
{
template class A
{
};
}
g++ 4.0/3.4 gives:
bug.cpp:4: error: expected primary-expression before 'template'
Can a language lawer please confirm that this is even valid before I
create a PR?
It's n
On Jun 21, 2005, at 4:12 AM, Frederic Stark wrote:
I am sending this to gnustep-dev crossposted to gcc. Maybe this
isn't the right mailing list. See at the end of the post for a 40
line program that exhibit the bad behavior.
Problem:
If a is a fault (ie: changes its isa pointer during
fo
* Mattias Karlsson:
> Given:
>
> void f(void)
> {
>template class A
>{
>};
> }
>
> g++ 4.0/3.4 gives:
> bug.cpp:4: error: expected primary-expression before 'template'
>
> Can a language lawer please confirm that this is even valid before I
> create a PR?
It's not valid (local templa
Given:
void f(void)
{
template class A
{
};
}
g++ 4.0/3.4 gives:
bug.cpp:4: error: expected primary-expression before 'template'
Can a language lawer please confirm that this is even valid before I
create a PR?
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> What version of GCC, if not the mainline, we don't care...
I'm speaking terms of mainline at the moment. I've just started running
Acovea through a new set of benchmarks with 4.1-cvs.
..Scott
Richard Guenther wrote:
> As the old loop optimizer is (hopefully) going away sooner or later
> small testcases are surely welcome that identify weak spots of the new
> loop optimizer.
I shall attempt the creation of small test cases, then. SHouldn;t be too
difficult, given the nature of my test c
On 6/21/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
> algorithms.
>
> I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
> "new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
>
> Is -floop-optimize2 still in
On Tuesday 21 June 2005 18:08, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
> algorithms.
>
> I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
> "new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
It is not that new anymore ;-) Bu
On Jun 21, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
algorithms.
What version of GCC, if not the mainline, we don't care that much as
the new tree based loop and rtl based loop (-floop-optimize2) optimizers
don't implement a
I've noticed that -floop-optimize2 tends to be a pessimism on many
algorithms.
I'm hesitant to file this as a "bug", given that -floop-optimize2 is a
"new" replacement for the older loop optimizer.
Is -floop-optimize2 still in development, and not ready yet -- or are
the problems I'm seeing somet
Feng Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on
one
> statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase
--
Giovanni Bajo
Pedro Lamarão <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hello.
|
| I would like to point out to those that may be interested and don't read
| comp.std.c++:
Thanks.
GCC/g++ developer are also members of the ISO C++ committee and
participate in C++ works on regular basis.
-- Gaby
Sebastian Pop wrote:
This is the best the compiler can do: it has warned the user of a
possible undefined behavior in the code, and that it will use this
assumption for transforming the code.
As with all warnings, you have to run this over a large test suite
of real applications to find out wh
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Quoting Feng Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on
> one
> > statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
>
> If the loci are different, it is
> possible to split the line between the warnings
Quoting Feng Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on one
> statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
I don't think this is possible if both warnings are issued for the same location
(which is probably not something we want). I
Hi,
I want to write a testcase. The compiler gives two separated warnings on one
statement. How to write this with Dejagnu?
I tried:
{ dg-warning "Warning1" "Warning2" }
and
{ dg-warning "Warning1" 8}
{ dg-warning "Warning2" 8}
8 is the line number of the statment.
But alwarys get excess errors
Hello.
I would like to point out to those that may be interested and don't read
comp.std.c++:
http://russ.hn.org/rref/
The thread is:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.std.c++/browse_thread/thread/64bf775bdf069dad/de55703ebbe063ce#de55703ebbe063ce
--
Pedro Lamarão
Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:57:17PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> On J
Hi all,
I am sending this to gnustep-dev crossposted to gcc. Maybe this isn't
the right mailing list. See at the end of the post for a 40 line program
that exhibit the bad behavior.
Problem:
If a is a fault (ie: changes its isa pointer during forwardInvocation),
then:
[a method1:[a method2
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 07:57:17PM +0400, Sergei Organov wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Jun 20, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Jun 20, 2005, at 10:54 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
35 matches
Mail list logo
