On 6/16/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
foo() {
int i = 99;
__builtin_setjmp(A)
if (i) {
print i
--i;
__builtin_longjump(A);
}
It used to not infinite loop, now it does.
We had an example just like this on IRC only a few weeks ago. ISTR it
was decided that
> I actually like the existing behaviour, which I'm pretty sure hasn't
> changed for many years.
It has, at least for "make quickstrap".
--
Eric Botcazou
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
>
> Daniel> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:22:17AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> Typing "make" in the gcc subdirectory does not do what I expect.
>
> Daniel> Then could you clarify what happens, and what you expect, ple
I add AS_NEEDED directive in /usr/lib/libc.so and then anything is ok.
Thanks to Ian and Jakub!
yxx
2006/6/13, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 08:35:17AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Well, your libstdc++ was configured for a system which supports TLS
> (Thread Lo
Here are just a few more issues I was wondering about for VLAs:
static int i;
static int new_i() { i++; return i; }
static int bar(int a[new_i()][new_i()]);
void foo(int n) {
/* Presently an error, but, should it be (due to bar having a VM
type and bar having other than no linkage)? */
ex
On Jun 15, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
The front-end in question has stopped working because the traditional
setjmp/longjmp translation of try/catch constructs is no longer
working correctly with versions of GCC higher than 4.0.
How is it no longer working? I don't understand how i
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| >
| > Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
| > | > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
| > | > extending GNU C with __try/__finally co
>
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
> | > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
> | > extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
> | >
> | > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| >
| > On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:03PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > > > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
| > > > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
| > > > extending GNU C with _
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
| > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
| > extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
| >
| > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/ms
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:03PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
> > > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
> > > extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
> > >
> > > http://gc
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:21:03PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
> > EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
> > extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc
> while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
> EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
> extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg00239.html
>
> What happened to that project? Is i
Hi,
while looking into a recent mismatch between GCC-4.x and a C dialect
EH implemented as setjmp/longjmp, I recalled there was a talk about
extending GNU C with __try/__finally construct:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-11/msg00239.html
What happened to that project? Is it dead f
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060615 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060615/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
I haven't had to to do this with the new mechanism for a while, but now I
need to do the equivalent of the old "make unstage1" and can't find
any documentation on how to do that (I thought this would be discussed
inside Makefile.tpl).
I basically had something blow up in stage2, so I want to go ba
thus, the pre-review batch test was a way to avoid wasting (human)
resources on an unacceptable patch.
You are confusing the review process with whether the patch "works".
To a large extent, those two issues are very different. A reviewer
will always presume the patch works and is look
On 15/06/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is understandable. In any case, it would probably best to have
a human in the loop before submitting patches to autobuilders, both
for security reasons and as a sanity check, to avoid wasting resources
on an unacceptable patch. Machine donor
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 6/15/06, Joern RENNECKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00549.html, you wrote:
>>
>> > -ftree-live-range-split splits live ranges on exit from ssa. This is
>> > on by default, and in fact it is more work to NOT split unrelated live
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Maintainers said that they are overwhelmed by the amount of work
required to review. Post-approval testing seems just a waste of time
to me.
It is, well, unless you want mainline to build and pass a regression
suite. No amount of pre-te
Hi,
FYI I've created a branch "boehms-gc" for my work. I'm about to commit
wwwdocs patch describing it -
boehms-gc
The goal of this branch is to test Boehm's GC feasibility as the
garbage collector for GCC proper. This is a part of Google Summer of
Code project, described in detail at
http://
On Jun 15, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Is there a standard process we use to eliminate -f options? or is it
more on a per options basis.
I think we should take into consideration the option. For corner
case options that aren't used very often, removing them outright be
well be
Steven Bosscher wrote:
Well, is that something you have to blame live range splitting for, or
is perhaps flow just too stupid to see through the split live ranges?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20211
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 19:06 +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00549.html, you wrote:
>
> > -ftree-live-range-split splits live ranges on exit from ssa. This is
> > on by default, and in fact it is more work to NOT split unrelated live
> > ranges, and creates
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00533.html, you wrote:
Inserting the nops in the asm code does not work,
because will cause some offets to go out of range.
It should when you adjust the ranges used by gcc to anticipate
the insertion of nops by the assembler.
On 6/15/06, Joern RENNECKE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00549.html, you wrote:
> -ftree-live-range-split splits live ranges on exit from ssa. This is
> on by default, and in fact it is more work to NOT split unrelated live
> ranges, and creates extra regis
> > I know, for example, SuSE has such a build farm that is accessible by
> > email (IE you email patches to it).
> >
> > If they were willing to let the patchapp submit emails (or xmlrpc or
> > whatever), and there was a way for it to notify the patchapp about the
> > results (xmlrpc or http pos
In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-06/msg00549.html, you wrote:
-ftree-live-range-split splits live ranges on exit from ssa. This is
on by default, and in fact it is more work to NOT split unrelated live
ranges, and creates extra register pressure.
I've found that in 4.1, -fno-web is often n
Hello,
> Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
> >
> >> I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
> >> set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
> >> patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
> >>
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
>
>> I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
>> set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
>> patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
>>
> Actually, the patch
On 6/15/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Right, but Manuel was commenting on Mike Stump's proposal, wondering
> >why Mike proposed to run the bootstrap tests *after* reviewer approval
> >instead of before.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:12:38PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> It might be a
On 15 June 2006 18:09, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
>>
>>> I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
>>> set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
>>> p
On 6/15/06, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
>
> > I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
> > set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 01:03:17PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
>
> > I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
> > set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
> > patforms, then either it passes and a notific
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 03:57:05PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Mike Stump proposed "a batch tester that
> would bootstrap and regression test on 2-5 platforms for all patch
> submitters post approval but pre-checkin." My point is that a batch
> tester post-approval is just wasting reviewers
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 06/15/06 05:34:
> I mean, there is a patch queue, you put your patch or patch
> set in the queue, it gets bootstrapped and tested as you said on 2-5
> patforms, then either it passes and a notification is send to the
>
Actually, the patch queue only stores the patches
Is there a standard process we use to eliminate -f options? or is it
more on a per options basis.
Im reworking out-of-ssa for 4.3 and there are a couple of options that
were initially added which I prefer to no longer support.
-ftree-combine-temps attempts to coalesce non-related ssa_names into a
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It doesn't have an actual reverse debugging implementation yet - but
> it's been proposed.
>
Here it is, but I don't know the exact current status of the proposal:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2006-01/msg00013.html
On 15/06/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I am new to the project so please don't take me too seriously if I am
> saying some dumb thing: why review a patch that doesn't pass bootstrap
> and check?
This is not usually an iss
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:31:55AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >>The point of going backwards (a feature quite familiar to me from
> >>the use of hardware debuggers on PC's in bygone years) is to figure
> >>out what went wrong, and for that purpose you only need to wo
On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:34 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I am new to the project so please don't take me too seriously if I am
saying some dumb thing: why review a patch that doesn't pass bootstrap
and check?
This is not usually an issue. Yes most people will only test one target
but that is
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
The point of going backwards (a feature quite familiar to me from
the use of hardware debuggers on PC's in bygone years) is to figure
out what went wrong, and for that purpose you only need to worry
about the machine/memory state.
Not when you're debugging userspace an
On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> You don't need to undo side effects for debugging purposes, you just
> need to be able to recreate previous states from the point of view
> of the application. So for I/O operations, you need to restore memory
> to the state before the
Sebastian Pop wrote:
kernel coder wrote:
is there any way in gdb to step backward.
not yet, and if this feature is implemented it should be quite
restricted, think about undoing side effects, as disk read/write...
But you can put a breakpoint before the current point, and then run
again gdb o
David Ayers wrote:
(I assume you didn't configure with --enable-objc-gc or java.)
No, I didn't. I've used a unified tree, created like this:
mv trunk gcc
mkdir srcw-l
cd srcw-l
ln -s ../gcc/* .
rm libgfortran
ln -s ../src/* .
rm include
mkdir include
cd include
ln -s ../../gcc/include/*
kernel coder wrote:
> is there any way in gdb to step backward.
>
not yet, and if this feature is implemented it should be quite
restricted, think about undoing side effects, as disk read/write...
But you can put a breakpoint before the current point, and then run
again gdb on your program.
is there any way in gdb to step backward.
On 6/15/06, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
kernel coder writes:
> hi,
> I'm trying to figure out the code flow of gcc.But i'm not been
> able to locate the location at which an expression is compared with
> pattern given in .md file.
kernel coder writes:
> hi,
> I'm trying to figure out the code flow of gcc.But i'm not been
> able to locate the location at which an expression is compared with
> pattern given in .md file.
>
> I think .md file is resposible fo generation of emit-insn.c
> file.But again at whic
hi,
I'm trying to figure out the code flow of gcc.But i'm not been
able to locate the location at which an expression is compared with
pattern given in .md file.
I think .md file is resposible fo generation of emit-insn.c
file.But again at which point the functions in emit-insn.c file
(We should really update contribute.html to explicitly said what must be done)
Hi Pedro, as far as I know, you just need to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
request "a personal copyright assignment for GCC".
You'll need to include your physical mailing address so they can send
some forms to you. They
On 14/06/06, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example we could introduce
secondary maintainers with approval rights for bug fixes only or something
along these lines.
Or the secondary maintainers could review patches and reject them but
not approve them for commit. They may add co
On 15/06/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For example, would be nice to have a batch tester that
would bootstrap and regression test on 2-5 platforms for all patch
submitters post approval but pre-checkin. If any regressions, dump
all patches and move on to the next set, repeat as fast
I need to make the following change to gcc:
- Once every 7 assembler instructions , I need to
generate a nop. ( for each cache block insert a nop
).My whole code (statically linked) needs to have this
so I also need to insert the noops for the entire
libc.
Inserting the nops in the asm code does n
53 matches
Mail list logo
