Kaveh R. Ghazi said:
> Hmm I'm curious, what systems (if any) have fprintf_unlocked?
At the time I thought glibc had it, but I don't see it on my (2.3.5)
system now.
baffled,
zw
It appears that the gcc included with Fedora Core 4 (or some other
program that may be used during gcc bootstrap) does not produce
identical output on stages 2 and 3. I ran "make bootstrap4", and the
comparison check passed after building stage 4.
Any one with Fedora Core 4 will have to run "make
> You'd expect the attempt to grow the stack to be made only *after*
> keep_going hits zero.
Only if you thought you knew better than the compiler :)
> I'd rather not have the compiler presume
> certainty of a 10GB stack allocation, especially not if it's actually
> pretty unlikely.
It could
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > X can be run time selectable, OMF selectable, OS defined...
> >
> > No.
> >
> > Making the stack bigger by inlining is no di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > X can be run time selectable, OMF selectable, OS defined...
>
> No.
>
> Making the stack bigger by inlining is no different from making it
I'm sorry that I didn't trace the cfgrtl.c before I posting the question.
Now I see that I can get the info again by calling compute_bb_for_insn().
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:15:49 +0800, Ling-hua Tseng wrote
> I'm porting the GCC 4.0.2 (2005-08-11 snapshot) to a new VLIW architecture.
>
> I figured
On Sun, 2005-08-14 at 13:14 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > Sebastian, I really think you are worrying too much.
>
> right.
>
> > It's pretty rare that it will take going all the way to omega to be able
> > to disambiguate two dependences.
> >
>
> for dependence tes
Hmm I'm curious, what systems (if any) have fprintf_unlocked?
The first mention of it that I see is where Zack added the machinery
to detect it here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-09/msg01174.html
>From the way he writes it was an afterthought, and not the main
purpose of his patch.
But
Here is the initial wiki page for the CompileFarm project:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
Feel free to add detailed proposals there.
Laurent
On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 13:01 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Thanks to all who proposed projects and volunteered, I've informed FSF
> France that the p
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12/08/2005 17:56:11:
> > comments/ideas?
>
> I would start by figuring out why update_ssa + rewrite_into_loop_closed
> isn't putting SFT.3 into loop closed ssa form.
>
> Even if we do put virtual vars back into loop closed, that's still a
> bug.
>
I f
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> Sebastian, I really think you are worrying too much.
right.
> It's pretty rare that it will take going all the way to omega to be able
> to disambiguate two dependences.
>
for dependence tests we exercise only a limited part of omega, but now
suppose that we'll use om
On Sunday 14 August 2005 01:39, Tommy Vercetti wrote:
> /home/gj/Projects/gcc/build/gcc/xgcc -B/home/gj/Projects/gcc/build/gcc/
> -B/usr/local/gcc4.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
> -B/usr/local/gcc4.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/
> -isystem /usr/local/gcc4.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include
> -isystem /usr/local/gcc4
12 matches
Mail list logo
