libjava will use -Bsymbolic on Linux, which is more aggresive than
-Bsymbol-functions. It will bind global data references locally in
additon to global function references. My patch will keep -Bsymbolic
for libjava if it is set by libjava/configure.host.
Here is an updated patch.
The configur
> The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
> reproduce the bug. Should that be used? The only other choices
> are FIXED (wrong), DUPLICATE (wrong), INVALID (we don't know that),
> or WONTFIX (we're not saying we won't fix it if we get a testcase).
>
> This came up beca
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Tathagato Rai Dastidar wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Is there a way I can make GCC read a C or C++ code from the standard
>> input instead of from a file?
>>
>> In my application software, I am generating some C code on the fly,
>> writing it to a file, then using GCC to compile it.
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html says that bugs in WAITING
state for more than three months, waiting for information on how
to reproduce the bug, can be closed, but it is unclear what the
"closed" state should be.
The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
repro
Bonsoir,
Je développe un programme de recalage de points sur une surface 3D.
Donc il s'agit d'utilisation d'algorithmes de calculs, (projection,
distance euclidienne..)
je cherche comment optimiser mon code, je suis arriver a la moitié du
temps d'exécution,
mais après l'utilisation de cette option
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard --
|
| The GCC SC has been discussing libgcc-math. RMS says that he will need
| to consider the issue, and that he has other things he wants to do
| first. So, I'm afraid that we can't give you a good timeline for a
| resolution of the questio
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:09:16AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > The subtlety I'm refering to is not that "void* p = &p" is not well-defined,
| > but rather the fact that when we see
| >
| > T t = some-expression-involving-t;
| >
| > we would like
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > These issues are tricky because on the one hand we don't want too many
> > different options, and on the other hand we want to give people the
> > control they are
On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
> is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
> warnings by itself (other
On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
* Taking the address of a variable which has been declared register.
Hmmm. In the C frontend these are pedwarns. But the C++ frontend
doesn't have pedwarns. And maybe C++ doesn't require these warnings
anyhow, I don't know.
Just FYI...
On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
>
Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
cpu2006/437.leslie3d benchmark is caused by revision 117891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?vi
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
> is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
> warnings by itself (other super-options are Wall and Wunused).
Thanks again for tackling this.
These
On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:27, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Andrija Radicevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > how could I find out from which patterns, in the md file, the 00.expand
> > file was generated (i.e. to map the patterns in the expand file with the
> > ones in the .md f
Richard --
The GCC SC has been discussing libgcc-math. RMS says that he will need
to consider the issue, and that he has other things he wants to do
first. So, I'm afraid that we can't give you a good timeline for a
resolution of the question, but I can say that some progress is being made.
FYI
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:09:51PM -0600, ying lcs wrote:
> Can you please tell me can I use gcc 3.4 to compile a binary on a 64
> bits machine? or I need to use gcc 4.1?
Please use gcc-help for questions like this. The gcc list is for
developers and serious testers, not for user support.
Hi,
Can you please tell me can I use gcc 3.4 to compile a binary on a 64
bits machine? or I need to use gcc 4.1?
Thank you.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 07:33:21PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >config/
> >
> >2007-01-10 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * ld-symbolic.m4: New.
>
> Please name the macro AC_LIB_PROG_LD_GNU_SYMBOLIC, or
> ACX_PROG_LD_GNU_SYMBOLIC.
>
> >libgfortran/
> >
> >2007-01-10 H.J. Lu <[EM
>My only critisism is that surely, all these improvements weren't carried
> out just last week. I.e. some of them could have been submitted earlier,
> thereby making them available to users earlier as well as preventing
> duplicate work. An example is PR target/28181, which was reported half a
On 1/11/07, Andrija Radicevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
how could I find out from which patterns, in the md file, the 00.expand file
was generated (i.e. to map the patterns in the expand file with the ones in the
.md file)? Is there a compiler option/switch which would tell the compiler ma
Hi,
how could I find out from which patterns, in the md file, the 00.expand file
was generated (i.e. to map the patterns in the expand file with the ones in the
.md file)? Is there a compiler option/switch which would tell the compiler mark
the patterns in the expand file with the insns names fr
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:13:54PM +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
> whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
> in a differe
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Third, it only checks C programs (and not C++).
This has not been true for some time now (at least developmental wise).
-- Pinski
Oops, had not noticed that. Forget third argument then.
Silvius
config/
2007-01-10 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ld-symbolic.m4: New.
Please name the macro AC_LIB_PROG_LD_GNU_SYMBOLIC, or
ACX_PROG_LD_GNU_SYMBOLIC.
libgfortran/
2007-01-10 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* aclocal.m4: Include ../config/lib-ld.m4 and
../config/
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
> > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sergei Organov writes:
> > >
> > > > If we come back to strict aliasing rules, then I will have to refer
> once
> > > > again to already cited place in the standard that say
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
> >
> > BTW, I've tried once to raise similar aliasing question in
> > comp.std.c++. The result was that somebody started to talk about
> > validity of pointers conversions that IMHO has nothing to do with
> > strict aliasing,
>
> Sergei Organov wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Below are two example functions foo() and boo(), that I think both are
> >>> valid from the POV of strict aliasing rules. GCC 4.2 either warns abou
Silvius Rus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I am about to submit a patch that implements -Wstrict-aliasing in the
> backend based on flow-sensitive points-to information, which is
> computed by analyzing the entire source of each function. It is not
> perfect (the problem is undecidable), but
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 09:03:42AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:26:09AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>"H.J." == H J Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>H.J.> With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
> >>H.J.> --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we
Sergei Organov wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Below are two example functions foo() and boo(), that I think both are
valid from the POV of strict aliasing rules. GCC 4.2 either warns about
both (with -Wstrict-aliasing=2) o
Sergei Organov writes:
>
> BTW, I've tried once to raise similar aliasing question in
> comp.std.c++. The result was that somebody started to talk about
> validity of pointers conversions that IMHO has nothing to do with
> strict aliasing,
It's the same issue.
> and the discussion died.
I
Sergei Organov writes:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sergei Organov writes:
> >
> > > If we come back to strict aliasing rules, then I will have to refer once
> > > again to already cited place in the standard that says that I'm
> > > permitted to access an object not only
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jan 11, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
>> So "h1.f" is not an object? If it is not, it brings us back to the
>> validity of my boo() function from the initial post, for which 2
>> persons
>> (3 including me) thought it's OK:
>
> Would be nice fo
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
>
> > If we come back to strict aliasing rules, then I will have to refer once
> > again to already cited place in the standard that says that I'm
> > permitted to access an object not only through a compatible type, but
> > also
On Jan 11, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
So "h1.f" is not an object? If it is not, it brings us back to the
validity of my boo() function from the initial post, for which 2
persons
(3 including me) thought it's OK:
Would be nice for you to raise the issue directly with the C
stan
Sergei Organov writes:
> If we come back to strict aliasing rules, then I will have to refer once
> again to already cited place in the standard that says that I'm
> permitted to access an object not only through a compatible type, but
> also through a structure containing a field of compatibl
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
> > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > > > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Menezes, Evandro wrote:
Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
Using binary search I've detected that 30% performance regression of
cpu2006/437.leslie3d benchmark is caused by revision 117891.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&revision=117891
I assume same commit causes regres
Sergei Organov writes:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
> > Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >
>> > > int float_as_int()
>
Sergei Organov writes:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sergei Organov writes:
> > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >
> > > int float_as_int()
> > > {
> > > h1.f = 1;
> > > H0 h0 = *(H0*)&h1.
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov writes:
> > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> >
> > >> $ cat alias.c
> > >> typedef struct { int i; } S;
> > >>
> > >> int i;
> > >> int foo()
> > >> {
> > >>
Sergei Organov writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
>
> >> $ cat alias.c
> >> typedef struct { int i; } S;
> >>
> >> int i;
> >> int foo()
> >> {
> >> S const sc = { 10 };
> >> i = 20;
> >> // Accessing object
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Below are two example functions foo() and boo(), that I think both are
>> valid from the POV of strict aliasing rules. GCC 4.2 either warns about
>> both (with -Wstrict-aliasing=2) or doesn't warn about a
Mike Stump writes:
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to whether I'd
> > screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches in a
> > different way.
>
> I don't see a trivial way that is strictly better. The
Hi Alex,
Right - you should be able to build the MCore port now. At least as
far as newlib/libgloss/libiberty anyway. libstdc++-v3 does not build at
the moment due to a problem unrelated to the 64-bit build OS issue, but
I assume that this does not bother you.
(You will need the latest g
Tathagato Rai Dastidar wrote:
Hello,
Is there a way I can make GCC read a C or C++ code from the standard
input instead of from a file?
In my application software, I am generating some C code on the fly,
writing it to a file, then using GCC to compile it. Instead of that, I
want to invoke G
H. J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:26:09AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
"H.J." == H J Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
H.J.> With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
H.J.> --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
H.J.> performance in gcc. This change will build libs
Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I just wanted to apologise for
something that Eric brought up...
Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
>> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
>> whet
48 matches
Mail list logo
