On 30 Oct 2006 22:56:59 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm certainly not saying that we should pull out GMP and MPFR. But I
am saying that we need to do much much better about making it easy for
people to build gcc.
Can't we just make it so that, if gmp/ amd mpfr/ directo
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would strongly oppose downloading stuff during the build
> process. We're not in the apt-get business; we can leave that to the
> GNU/Linux distributions, the Cygwin distributors, etc. If you want to
> build a KDE application, you have to first build/
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mark's reasoning. It's true that
we've always required a big set of tools to do development with gcc.
And it's true that we require GNU make to be installed and working in
order to build gcc. But this is the first time that we've ever
On 30/10/2006, at 5:31 PM, Shantonu Sen wrote:
For what it's worth, I did a build on Mac OS X for Intel 10.4.8 last
week, and had no problems building GMP 4.2.1 and mprf-2.2.0, with no
special --target options. Maybe you have an old version of gmp in
your default linker search path causing
For what it's worth, I did a build on Mac OS X for Intel 10.4.8 last
week, and had no problems building GMP 4.2.1 and mprf-2.2.0, with no
special --target options. Maybe you have an old version of gmp in your
default linker search path causing bad things to happen. I think if
it's failing f
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>
> > 5. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
> >
> > Note that we chose not to work around all new GCC bugs in this
> > release. Never forget to do make check after building the library
> > to make
On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
3 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file tests/texp2.c.rej
?
I'm informed that --dry-run is broken... Very odd, so unfortunate.
>
> On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or
> > > macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much
> > > everything has required some
On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or
> macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much
> everything has required some small patch or another
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> mrs $ patch -p1 --dry-run < ~/Desktop/mpfr-2.2.0-cumulative.patch
Because the patch is the concatenation of 16 successive fixes for
individual bugs (so contains more than one diff to some files), --dry-run
won't work with it. The patch should apply fine
On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Copies of the correct sources were put in:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
mrs $ bunzip2 ? :-( I just installed the broken one and didn't worry about it.
I'm sure it'll come back to bite me. I wish the mpfr people could be
swa
> So... could someone elaborate on what it is I am doing that
> is so wrong? What is the successful recipe for using GCC
> 3.3.5 + 4.1.1 and/or binutils under Solaris?
libgcc_s.so is backwards compatible. The 3.3 compiled code should work fine
with the 4.1 libgcc.
It is not forwards compatible.
I'm backed into a corner here and really not sure what the
proper path out is.
-- Our production GCC is 3.3.5. It was built with default
args. Previously we ran 2.95.3. You can perhaps realize
my surprise when I found that a lot of apps we had built
with this GCC 3.3.5 had libgcc_s.so
On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or
macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much
everything has required some small patch or another.
I guess you are joking?
Marcin Dalecki
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> > One more thing, I initially went down the road of including the GMP/
> > MPFR
> > sources in the gcc tree and building them as part of the bootstrap
> > process. But the consensus was not to do that:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg001
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> > I'd like to point out that the powerpc-darwin reports we were getting
> > from the regression tester prior to this requirement were not
> > including gfortran results:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01062.html
> >
> > One of th
One more thing, I initially went down the road of including the GMP/
MPFR
sources in the gcc tree and building them as part of the bootstrap
process. But the consensus was not to do that:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00167.html
I think the problem is that Mark also said
I do think we
On 30/10/2006, at 1:24 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Also, although I experience no regressions, i'll point out that
there
is no automated tested for macintel darwin that posts to
gcc-testresults, which does not bode well for something you would
li
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> > Also, although I experience no regressions, i'll point out that there
> > is no automated tested for macintel darwin that posts to
> > gcc-testresults, which does not bode well for something you would like
> > to be a primary platform.
>
> You are n
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> 5. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
>
> Note that we chose not to work around all new GCC bugs in this
> release. Never forget to do make check after building the library
> to make likely it was not miscompiled!
>
> and therefore this libra
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Hi Kaveh,
>
> Since your patch
>
>
> r117933 | ghazi | 2006-10-21 06:58:13 -0700 (Sat, 21 Oct 2006) | 16
> lines
>
> * configure.in: Require GMP-4.1+ and MPFR-2.2+. Don
On 10/30/06, Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> 4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
>>
>> [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix
>> planned for GMP 4.x.
>>
>> and indeed it does not appear to build c
> Could this patch be applied now?
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00210.html
Assuming it's been bootstrapped with no regressions, and the legal
paperwork is in place, yes.
On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
[2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix
planned for GMP 4.x.
and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on
my MacBook Pro?
Errr, well,
I have installe
On 30 October 2006 18:01, Marcelo Marchi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I need some help from gcc gurus regarding delivering source code
> I have a application that needs to be delivered to be compiled on my
> customer side, BUT it cannot make changes or have any understanding
> about code.
> This deli
"Marcelo Marchi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need some help from gcc gurus regarding delivering source code
> I have a application that needs to be delivered to be compiled on my
> customer side, BUT it cannot make changes or have any understanding
> about code.
> This deliver is strong ne
4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says
[2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix
planned for GMP 4.x.
and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on
my MacBook Pro?
Errr, well,
I have installed the version from macports on my macbook pro, and i
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:57 -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Hi Kaveh,
>
> 1. Is this intentional?
Yes, do you read any of the mailing lists?
>
> 2. Is it supposed to apply to the host, the target, or both?
HOST.
>
> 3. If it's intentional, what is the list of platforms that you
> intended
Hi all,
I need some help from gcc gurus regarding delivering source code
I have a application that needs to be delivered to be compiled on my
customer side, BUT it cannot make changes or have any understanding
about code.
This deliver is strong necessary by many reasons, particularly by
chang
Hi Kaveh,
Since your patch
r117933 | ghazi | 2006-10-21 06:58:13 -0700 (Sat, 21 Oct 2006) | 16
lines
* configure.in: Require GMP-4.1+ and MPFR-2.2+. Don't check
need_gmp anymore.
I'm getting
configure
I would like to mirror the gfortran mailing list using
Google Groups, for reasons described at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-10/msg00692.html .
Someone suggested I contact the "GCC steering
committee" to get feedback, so I am posting here.
Vivek Rao
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Can anybody tell me the purpose of the testcase
> testsuite\gcc.dg\special\gcsec-1.c in the gcc testsuite ?
> Is it something related with garbage clooection?
>
> What exactly doec this testcase test ?
It's intended to test linker garbage collection
On 30 October 2006 13:36, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Can anybody tell me the purpose of the testcase
> testsuite\gcc.dg\special\gcsec-1.c in the gcc testsuite ?
> Is it something related with garbage clooection?
Yes, but not the gcc garbage collector but the linker's section-based g
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. How does the life1 pass gets the register usage information from
> the gcse pass?
The GCSE pass does not generate any register usage informatoin. The
life1 pass computes register usage by looking at the RTL.
> 2. From which other passes and how,
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem due to which the below mentioned program was not working
> is because of CODE HOISTING pass. I just masked the code hoisting step
> and the program worked fine.
At this point, if you want us to be able to give you useful
suggestions, you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30/10/2006 15:25:09:
> Hi all,
>
> I am working with GCC Cross compiler 4.1.1. I just some information
> regarding the following:
>
> 1. How does the life1 pass gets the register usage information from
> the gcse pass?
AFAICT life1 pass calculates the live registers fr
Hello all,
Can anybody tell me the purpose of the testcase
testsuite\gcc.dg\special\gcsec-1.c in the gcc testsuite ?
Is it something related with garbage clooection?
What exactly doec this testcase test ?
Thanks in advance.
Regards ,
Shafi.
Hi all,
I am working with GCC Cross compiler 4.1.1. I just some information
regarding the following:
1. How does the life1 pass gets the register usage information from
the gcse pass?
2. From which other passes and how, the information about registers
used can be determined by looking at the RT
Given that Roger started the ball rolling, by approving Steven's
-fcse-skip-blocks patch, I'll ping the discussion...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg01066.html
Paolo
39 matches
Mail list logo
