gcc 4.0.1 testsuite failures on sparc64-linux: 59 unexpected gcc failures

I'll be posting to gcc-testresults eventually alos, I just had to start this thread... This is on Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc I (SpitFire) sun4u: binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5.sparc bison-1.875c-2.sparc dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch expect-5.42.1-1.sparc gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc gcc4-

Re: Reducing debug info for C++ ctors/dtors

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:18:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense. Personally, if > you're going to do this, I don't see why you're keeping debug info for > methods; either ditch all artificial methods (including defaulted > constructors but n

Re: Reducing debug info for C++ ctors/dtors

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:11:58PM -0700, Jason Molenda wrote: > Yeah, Devang didn't present what we're doing here on the debug side > too well. We're giving up a bit of information from within gdb -- > it won't know what constructors and destructors a class has defined > -- for a large savings in

Re: Reducing debug info for C++ ctors/dtors

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:56:36PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > However, it is good enough to have > > > > .stabs "Base1:Tt(0,41)=s4x:(0,9),0,32;getx::(0,44)=#(0,41), > > (0,9),(0,43)=*(0,41),(0,36);:_ZN5Base14getxEv;2A.;;",128,0,1,0 > Eh, no. You have just lost any information

Re: Reducing debug info for C++ ctors/dtors

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 05:37:32PM -0700, Devang Patel wrote: > will emit a class definition LSYM of > > .stabs "Base1:Tt(0,41)=s4x:(0,9),0,32;__base_ctor ::(0,42)=# > (0,41),(0,36),(0,43)=*(0,41),(0,9),(0,36);:_ZN5Base1C2Ei; > 2A.;__comp_ctor ::(0,42):_ZN5Base1C1Ei;2A.;getx::(0,44)=#(0

Reducing debug info for C++ ctors/dtors

Our analysis suggests that reducing certain stabs info for C++ ctors/ dtors can lead to significant final size reduction without noticeable change in quality of debugging (in STABS world, at least). For example, class Base1 { public: int x; Base1(int i) { x = i; } int getx (void) { retu

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:27:58PM -0400, Daniel Berlin took 34 lines to write: > On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote: > > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially > > when doing searchs. > > You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the in

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Let's see. The last time i tried to use info (the program) was about 6 > weeks ago, I was refering to a recent version, not a recent use. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürn

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:21 -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit > > > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> > > > > I just had a quick quiz in the C++ IRC channel I was in, and very few > people there like info, and very few are comfortable using it. There was > a general agreement HTML, PDF and docbook are the best ways to recieve > documentation. > > Chris It's possible these people ride the shor

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >| On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: >| >| > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: >| > >| >>> Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, >| >>> especially when doing searchs. >| >> You must be cl

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: | | > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit | > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the | > internals manual in without review. Is that somethin

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit | > | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:07:01AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit > > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the > > internals manual in without review. Is

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Tuesday 12 July 2005 00:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit > | after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the > | internals manual in without review. Is that som

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote: Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Most people i've met can't undertand the commands for info (pinfo is nicer in this regard). There exist many alternative info browsers (this includes konqueror). Yet the amount of docs available in info

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: | | > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: | > | >>> Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, | >>> especially when doing searchs. | >> You must be close to the only user i've met who

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the > internals manual in without review. Is that something people are > willing to consider and discuss? I think t

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: | > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: | > >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to | > >> assist in review? | > > | > > I strongly support this (and was going

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit > after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the > internals manual in without review. Is that something people are > willing to consider and discuss? Rather t

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Monday 11 July 2005 23:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to > >> assist in review? > > > > I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd > > rather it be another li

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to >> assist in review? > I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd rather > it be another list though, say wiki-patches or doc-patches, because of the > amoun

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html > where you said: >> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if >>

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Most people i've met can't undertand the commands for info (pinfo is > nicer in this regard). There exist many alternative info browsers (this includes konqueror). > Those who use info religiously seem to be emacs users, not "info browser" > users.

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when doing searchs. You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :) I use it. Info pages suck in many wa

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 22:47 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when > doing searchs. > | > | You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :) >

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote: Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when doing searchs. You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :) I use it. Info pages suck in many ways, but they're fast to load from an xterm, fast to

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> "Kevin" == Kevin Handy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Kevin> Paul Koning wrote: >>> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>> >> Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: >> >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki

Re: 4.0.1, Solaris10/x86, bootstrap failed

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Guenter Feldmann wrote: > 3)Gnu as, Sun ld > both compilers (c and c++) built but > linking of libstdc++.so failed Please try --with-as=/usr/sfw/bin/gas as recommended in the documentation

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] | > Also, a web-browser is much slower than an info-browser, especially when doing searchs. | | You must be close to the only user i've met who uses the info browser :) Ahem; is your world that small? -- Gaby

4.0.1, Solaris10/x86, bootstrap failed

Hi I had no luck in installing gcc-4.0.1 on Solaris10/x86. My environment: Solaris10 on AMD64, binutils: 2.16.1 bootstrap compiler: gcc-3.4.4 libtool:1.5.18 I tried three configurations: 1) Sun as, Sun ld: compiling crtstuff.

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Paul Koning wrote: "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki >> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this being the way >> to go. Josep

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Robert Thorpe wrote: > > I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely > > because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process. > > > > I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather > > that it's not a

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely > because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process. > > I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather > that it's not a substitute for the more formal documentation. Were it > not for

Re: attribute initialized

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:07:20PM +0200, Sylvester Diehl wrote: > why doesn't gcc (-Wall -Wuninitalized -O) detect > an uninialized variable passed by reference > decleared as const * ? There are no uninitialized variables in your program. For the kind of access checking you seem to be asking

Re: HEADS-UP: tree-optimize.c and passes.c heavily modified

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:17:46PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Other conflicts could be caused by added include files or by adding code > to the bottom of the files implementing the RTL passes. These are not > as bad. > No conflicts in gomp, but I think your patch may have introduced this:

attribute initialized

Hello why doesn't gcc (-Wall -Wuninitalized -O) detect an uninialized variable passed by reference decleared as const * ? Do we need an attribute like (("initialized")) in the function prototype to give gcc an hint to force checking of uninitalized parameters ? example file foo.c: - cu

RE: 'main' enters in gcc-4.1

Original Message >From: Mike Stump >Sent: 11 July 2005 18:40 > On Monday, July 11, 2005, at 07:15 AM, Perret Yannick wrote: >> (second send, as I never saw my first send on the mailing list. >> sorry if duplicated). Perret, next time you aren't certain if your post got through, go to th

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:20:08AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > Are you saying that __kernel_ldbu(mem) > is never called on pure ev5 machines, then? Yes, that is what I am saying. r~

Bugzilla back up (was Re: Bugzilla is temporarily down)

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 12:55 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > While we free some space on the server. > Sorry about that. > > And now it's back up

Re: 'main' enters in gcc-4.1

On Monday, July 11, 2005, at 07:15 AM, Perret Yannick wrote: (second send, as I never saw my first send on the mailing list. sorry if duplicated). I've seen it twice now, a third time is not necessary. Can you explain me why I see that behavior? Is it "good" or is it a bug? Sounds like a bu

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

Richard Henderson wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: No, this code is protected by various system checks. We want -mcpu=ev5 such that the kernel as a whole will run everywhere, but we require these specific instructions on specific ev56/ev6 systems for i/o. rth

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Monday, July 11, 2005, at 08:30 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote: In practice, people have already contributed significants amount of documentation as comment because they disagree with the GFDL. I'm of the opinion we never should have allowed the GFDL into our source tree, no thanks should have b

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > >No, this code is protected by various system checks. > > > >We want -mcpu=ev5 such that the kernel as a whole will run everywhere, > >but we require these specific instructions on specific ev56/ev6 systems > >for i/o. > > rth, can you e

RE: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

Original Message >From: Nicholas Nethercote >Sent: 11 July 2005 17:08 > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > >>> There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of >>> signed integers in C. Apparently this is undefined according to the C >>> standard. I searched th

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

Richard Henderson wrote: On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:54:34AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: More appropriate would be to make the command line consistent with the code. If there's inline assembly that requires ev6, then -mcpu=ev6 is appropriate. No, this code is protected by various system checks

Bugzilla is temporarily down

While we free some space on the server. Sorry about that.

Re: why are there many copies of function_decls that have the same information including the same uid?

I was wrong, I misread some debugging output. Sorry, kenny Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 11, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 08:40 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: Is this a bug or a feature? Bug. where is it occurring? I want to say the C++ front-end since that i

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:57:58AM +0200, Falk Hueffner wrote: > The "ldbu" instruction is only available on ev56 and above, however, > gcc4.1 emits ".arch ev5" because of "-mcpu=ev5", which overrides as's > "-mev6". This used to work because 4.0 didn't output ".arch ev5" > because it doesn't actua

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 08:54:34AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > More appropriate would be to make the command line consistent with the > code. If there's inline assembly that requires ev6, then -mcpu=ev6 is > appropriate. No, this code is protected by various system checks. We want -mcpu=ev5 such

Re: should libgcc depend on libc?

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 07:48:47PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Should I really not use -nostandardlibs for libgcc_s ? Yes, I'm pretty sure you should not do that. > I just got a linker warning because I had bumped libc > from .36.1 to .37.0 and am recompiling gcc... this > yields executables

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely because it allows such an unencumbered contribution process. I agree. I wasn't suggesting that the Wiki has no value, but rather that it's not a substitute for the more formal documentation. Were it not for copyright issue

RE: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Dave Korn wrote: There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of signed integers in C. Apparently this is undefined according to the C standard. I searched the standard on this matter, and while I did find some paragraphs that described how unsigned i

Re: ix86_value_regno and callers

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:14:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > I'm lost in the mysteries of expansion of the indirect call, also > > > ix86_value_regno gets called all over the place, so the

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

*sigh* > To play the Devil's advocate: One could argue that someone contributing > to the GCC code under the GPL does not agree with the GFDL, and therefore > the FSF can't live up to its promise (that iirc it makes in the copyright > assignment) to keep the code under a free license. ... if comm

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 15:19 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, > > > > such a statement would

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Monday 11 July 2005 17:21, Andrew Haley wrote: > > We already can't do that. We can't move documentation from the manual > > into the code, and vice versa, because of the GPL vs. GFDL issue. > > Actually, that's not true because *we* (or to be accurate the FSF) own > the copyright on both. T

RE: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

Original Message >From: Nathan Sidwell >Sent: 11 July 2005 16:15 > c99 6.5 para 5 (overflow is undefined) Have I got an old draft or something, or is that the paragraph that begins "If an _exceptional_ _condition_ occurs ..." ? > I cannot find, in c99, a statement that all unsigned ar

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 16:22 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Monday 11 July 2005 16:19, Diego Novillo wrote: > > Would a blanket statement at the start of the wiki be enough? > > Who gets to decide this? > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, > such a statement

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Steven Bosscher writes: > On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, > > > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly > > > not my intention to sign over

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, > > > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly > > > not my intenti

Re: Overflow in Fortran (was: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?)

On Monday 11 July 2005 15:58, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > Also, does anyone know what the required behaviour for Fortran integers is > on overflow? Section 7.1.7 "Evaluation of operation" "The evaluation of any numeric operation whose result is not defined by the arithmetic used by the processo

Re: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

Nicholas Nethercote wrote: Hi, There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of signed integers in C. Apparently this is undefined according to the C standard. I searched the standard on this matter, and while I did find some paragraphs that described how unsigned integ

Re: ix86_value_regno and callers

On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 05:14:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > I'm lost in the mysteries of expansion of the indirect call, also > > ix86_value_regno gets called all over the place, so the "interesting" > > call-site is hard to find. > > We'

RE: Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

Original Message >From: Nicholas Nethercote >Sent: 11 July 2005 15:59 > Hi, > > There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of > signed integers in C. Apparently this is undefined according to the C > standard. I searched the standard on this matter, and while I d

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> --- Diego Novillo wrote: > > Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. > > > > My line of thought was described in the text that > > you removed: > > "However, it would be very useful for us to > transfer > > information > > from the wiki into the manual from time to time." > > I am suggest

Where does the C standard describe overflow of signed integers?

Hi, There was recently a very long thread about the overflow behaviour of signed integers in C. Apparently this is undefined according to the C standard. I searched the standard on this matter, and while I did find some paragraphs that described how unsigned integers must wrap around upon o

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Monday 11 July 2005 16:50, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Steven Bosscher wrote: > > I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, > > such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly > > not my intention to sign over the various Wiki contributions I have >

Re: Offset and Bit Mask for Bit Fields?

Andrew Haley wrote: Dimitry Golubovsky writes: > > If one wants to automatically determine offset of a regular field in a > C structure, one uses `offsetof' > > According to the documentation, > > == > This macro (offsetof) won't work if member is a bit field; you get an > erro

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Steven Bosscher wrote: I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly not my intention to sign over the various Wiki contributions I have made to the FSF. This strikes me as shortsighted. If we're ge

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:41:25PM +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote: > --- Diego Novillo wrote: > > And we cannot > > do that if we don't have cleared out the copyright > > assignment of > > wiki content. > > And so? > Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking. My line of thought was described in

Re: Warnings when build gcc-4.0.2

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 10:27:52PM +0800, Feng Wang wrote: > When building gcc-4.0.2 I find many warnings about redefined HAVE_DECL_GETOPT. > Are they what we expect? > > version: 4.0.2 20050711 (prerelease) > configuration: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/wf/local > --enab

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

--- Diego Novillo wrote: > And we cannot > do that if we don't have cleared out the copyright > assignment of > wiki content. And so? ___ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Ya

Warnings when build gcc-4.0.2

When building gcc-4.0.2 I find many warnings about redefined HAVE_DECL_GETOPT. Are they what we expect? version: 4.0.2 20050711 (prerelease) configuration: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/wf/local --enable-languages=c,f95 host and target: i686-pc-linux-gnu #grep warning buildlog.txt [snip

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:10:56PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > So, contribute to the manual then. And let the folks who prefer to > work on the wiki work on the wiki. > I believe the Wiki is an invaluable documentation tool, precisely because it allows such an unencumbered contribution proce

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Monday 11 July 2005 16:19, Diego Novillo wrote: > Would a blanket statement at the start of the wiki be enough? > Who gets to decide this? I guess that, apart from the legal discussion of whether this enough, such a statement would not apply to existing content. It was certainly not my intenti

'main' enters in gcc-4.1

(second send, as I never saw my first send on the mailing list. sorry if duplicated). Hello, I'm using '-finstrument-functions' for a while to make function-level profiling. Recently, I compiled gcc-4.1 (without problem) and used it for the same purpose. Here is the result : >>> Enter main (es

Re: Offset and Bit Mask for Bit Fields?

Dimitry Golubovsky writes: > > If one wants to automatically determine offset of a regular field in a > C structure, one uses `offsetof' > > According to the documentation, > > == > This macro (offsetof) won't work if member is a bit field; you get an > error from the C com

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Monday 11 July 2005 15:54, Paul Koning wrote: > > "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: > >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki > >> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this

Offset and Bit Mask for Bit Fields?

Hi, If one wants to automatically determine offset of a regular field in a C structure, one uses `offsetof' According to the documentation, == This macro (offsetof) won't work if member is a bit field; you get an error from the C compiler in that case. == Do there exist

Re: why are there many copies of function_decls that have the same information including the same uid?

On Jul 11, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 08:40 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: Is this a bug or a feature? Bug. where is it occurring? I want to say the C++ front-end since that is where a couple of ICEs have showed up because of that. -- Pinski

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

Paul Koning wrote: "Falk" == Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> $ alpha-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 \ >> -mno-fp-regs -ffixed-8 -msmall-data -mcpu=ev5 -Wa,-mev6 -c >> core_cia.i Falk> I don't see any fault on gcc's side here. You could argue that Falk>

Re: Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> "Joseph" == Joseph S Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Joseph> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: >> I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki >> pages. But only if there is a consensus about this being the way >> to go. Joseph> I'm sure it's the wron

Re: gcc-4.1-20050709: alpha: "macro requires $at register while noat in effect" while compiling Linux kernel

> "Falk" == Falk Hueffner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> $ alpha-unknown-linux-gnu-gcc -fno-common -ffreestanding -O2 \ >> -mno-fp-regs -ffixed-8 -msmall-data -mcpu=ev5 -Wa,-mev6 -c >> core_cia.i Falk> I don't see any fault on gcc's side here. You could argue that Falk> the command line

Re: why are there many copies of function_decls that have the same information including the same uid?

On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 08:40 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote: > Is this a bug or a feature? Bug. where is it occurring?

why are there many copies of function_decls that have the same information including the same uid?

Is this a bug or a feature?

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Jeroen Scheerder writes: > Rainer Orth (25/4/05 12:28 +0200) [Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ > support]: > > >> Partial success only. I think I'll be able to build it without C++ > >> support, but compilation per your instruction does choke on > >>libstdc++.so.6.0.4. > > > >I've had the same p

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki pages. But only if there is a consensus about this being the way to go. I'm sure it's the wrong way to go. I find a properly formatted and indexed book far m

Re: Re: Some notes on the Wiki

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Michael Cieslinski wrote: > I also could convert parts of the ggcinternals manual into wiki pages. > But only if there is a consensus about this being the way to go. I'm sure it's the wrong way to go. I find a properly formatted and indexed book far more convenient for lear

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Nobody is going to be blocked by this; no bootstrap will be broken; no >> wrong code will be generated. This ain't code. In many common cases, the > > Wrong code will be generated when someone relies on subtly wrong > information in the documentation.

Re: Calling a pure virtual function

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 08:41:47PM +1000, Adam Nielsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I was expecting the following code snippet to work, so am I doing > something wrong, or is there an issue with GCC? I was under the > impression that this is allowed, according to > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > My personal position is that making documentation patches *blocked* by > review (as happens with code) is wrong. The worst thing it can happen is > that the documentation patch is wrong, and the doc maintainer can revert it > in literally seconds (using

Re: Some notes on the Wiki (was: 4.1 news item)

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html Yes. And the review was very detailed, and suggested that I had to redone to wo

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

I converted this patch because I thought it would be helpful after reading this message from Giovanni Bajo: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-03/msg00552.html > > I had provided this patch in the past, but was rejected: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html > > I never had time

Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support

Rainer Orth (25/4/05 12:28 +0200) [Re: Built gcc 4.0.0, without C++ support]: >> Partial success only. I think I'll be able to build it without C++ >> support, but compilation per your instruction does choke on >>libstdc++.so.6.0.4. > >I've had the same problem and think I know what's going on.

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html where you said: > (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if > it still seems desirable to have it as a coh

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html where you said: > (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if > it still seems desirable to have it as a coh

Re: Some notes on the Wiki

In fact, i had someone recently send me a *104 page PDF file* on how RTL really works organized in a way that most developers would probably find better. If the guy has copyright assignment on file, I can volunteer to convert this. Is the PDF made from latex? If so I have some scripts to aid.