On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:17:07PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:05:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > >Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
> > >the GCC tests on an installed compil
"drizzle drizzle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does gcc do an divison by constant optimization for any 16 bit
> architecture. Can anyone point me to where it does that ?
expand_divmod in expmed.c.
Ian
On 11 Jan 2007 17:29:10 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Jan 2007 15:48:36 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > * A function can return either with or without a value.
> >
> > I give up.
>
> :-) Non
The option Walways-true is described as:
Warn about comparisons which are always true such as testing if
unsigned values are greater than or equal to zero. This warning is
enabled by -Wall.
In the description of warnings emitted by -Wextra we can find:
An unsigned value is compared against zero
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> >Working on GCC 4 based GNAT port for AIX 5.[23], our testsuite to
> >evaluate GDB (6.4) debugging capabilities currently yields very
> >unpleasant results compared to what we obtain with a GCC 3.4 based
> >compiler (80+ extra failures out of
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:05:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> >Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
> >the GCC tests on an installed compiler and without having to do a GCC
> >build?
>
> You must be new around her
Hi
Does gcc do an divison by constant optimization for any 16 bit
architecture. Can anyone point me to where it does that ?
thanks
dz
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
the GCC tests on an installed compiler and without having to do a GCC
build?
You must be new around here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/1997-1998/msg0.html
Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
the GCC tests on an installed compiler and without having to do a GCC
build?
I started with
runtest -tool gcc --srcdir /proj/opensrc/nightly/src/trunk/gcc/testsuite
and that ran the tests, but it ran them with whatever gcc
> Hello,
>
> > > > GCC trunk revision 120704 failed to build SPEC cpu2000/gcc on -O1 and
> > > > higher optimization level at x86_64-redhat-linux.
> > > >
> > > > reload1.c: In function 'reload':
> > > > reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set
> > > > bad_spill_regs
> >
> -Original Message-
> I would like to say the one thing I have not heard through this
> discussion is the real reason why the C standards comittee decided
> signed overflow as being undefined. All I can think of is they were
> thinking of target that do saturation for plus/minus but wrapp
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070112 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070112/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of H.
> J. Lu
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 5:35 PM
> To: Janis Johnson
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Menezes, Evandro;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC: Add BID as a configure time op
Hello,
> > > GCC trunk revision 120704 failed to build SPEC cpu2000/gcc on -O1 and
> > > higher optimization level at x86_64-redhat-linux.
> > >
> > > reload1.c: In function 'reload':
> > > reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set
> > > bad_spill_regs
> > >
> > > reload1
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 02:06:48PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> >> Though not as p
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
reproduce the bug. Should that be used?
No, not generally. This should only be used if someone says, I
compile foo on platform bar and it didn't build and then someone
tries bu
Hello,
> > GCC trunk revision 120704 failed to build SPEC cpu2000/gcc on -O1 and
> > higher optimization level at x86_64-redhat-linux.
> >
> > reload1.c: In function 'reload':
> > reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set
> > bad_spill_regs
> >
> > reload1.c:449: error: a
On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Working on GCC 4 based GNAT port for AIX 5.[23], our testsuite to
evaluate GDB (6.4) debugging capabilities currently yields very
unpleasant results compared to what we obtain with a GCC 3.4 based
compiler (80+ extra failures out of 1800+ tests
On Jan 12, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
The major chunk of this reworking has been blocked from going into
mainline because GCC was in stages 2 & 3 for much of this year.
Yeah, spending large amounts of time in stage2 and 3 does have
disadvantages. I'd rather have people that hav
On 1/12/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 1/11/07, Grigory Zagorodnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Menezes, Evandro wrote:
> >> Though not as pronounced, definitely significant.
> >>
> >
> >Using binary search I've detecte
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:38:56AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:57:42AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > >libjava will use -Bsymbolic on Linux, which is more aggresive than
> > >-Bsymbol-functions. It will bind global data references locally in
> > >additon to global func
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:30:27PM +0300, Grigory Zagorodnev wrote:
> Hi!
> GCC trunk revision 120704 failed to build SPEC cpu2000/gcc on -O1 and
> higher optimization level at x86_64-redhat-linux.
>
> reload1.c: In function 'reload':
> reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not
Hi!
GCC trunk revision 120704 failed to build SPEC cpu2000/gcc on -O1 and
higher optimization level at x86_64-redhat-linux.
reload1.c: In function 'reload':
reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit not set
bad_spill_regs
reload1.c:449: error: address taken, but ADDRESSABLE bit
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:41:08PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > Saddest is that is that in a batch of various related bug closings, the
> > > blanket comment "M68k/ColdFire is not a primary platform - CLOSED".
> >
> > That should not happen, they should only get their target milestone
> > bump
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 08:06:31PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 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
> >cpu2006/43
"Puetz, Oliver P11M22" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> here's a little sample code, which could be compiled with g++ 3.01 under
> hp-ux, but when compiled with g++ 3.4.6 under linux, following error
> occured:
>
> sample.c: In member function 'T C2::PROC(T)':
> sample.c:19: error: 'c1i' was not d
> Olivier Hainque writes:
Olivier> Working on GCC 4 based GNAT port for AIX 5.[23], our testsuite to
Olivier> evaluate GDB (6.4) debugging capabilities currently yields very
Olivier> unpleasant results compared to what we obtain with a GCC 3.4 based
Olivier> compiler (80+ extra failures out of
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:13:11PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> H. J. Lu writes:
> > 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.
> > >
> > > Pleas
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:57:42AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >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
Hi,
here's a little sample code, which could be compiled with g++ 3.01 under
hp-ux, but when compiled with g++ 3.4.6 under linux, following error
occured:
sample.c: In member function 'T C2::PROC(T)':
sample.c:19: error: 'c1i' was not declared in this scope
Compilation was executed with "g++
Nathan Sidwell writes:
> The major chunk of this reworking has been blocked from going into
> mainline because GCC was in stages 2 & 3 for much of this year.
> When it was in stage 1, we weren't in a position to add things
> coherently. We've not deliberately been holding back on patches
> t
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
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,
H. J. Lu writes:
> 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.
> >
> > Saddest is that is that in a batch of various related bug closings, the
> > blanket comment "M68k/ColdFire is not a primary platform - CLOSED".
>
> That should not happen, they should only get their target milestone
> bumped. I cannot remember having seen any case of a bug being _closed_
> jus
Peter Barada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Saddest is that is that in a batch of various related bug closings, the
> blanket comment "M68k/ColdFire is not a primary platform - CLOSED".
That should not happen, they should only get their target milestone
bumped. I cannot remember having seen any c
Hi Guys,
Last month I submitted a patch to add a new switch to gcc:
--print-optimizers. The idea of this switch was that it would only
display those switches that controlled optimizations, and that it
would show their current status (activated/not activated). Mark
Mitchell suggested th
On 1/12/07, Andrija Radicevic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Paul Brook
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:34 AM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Steven Bosscher; Andrija Radicevic
> Subject: Re: dump after RTL expand
>
> On Thursday 11 January 2007 19:27, Steven B
Hello,
Working on GCC 4 based GNAT port for AIX 5.[23], our testsuite to
evaluate GDB (6.4) debugging capabilities currently yields very
unpleasant results compared to what we obtain with a GCC 3.4 based
compiler (80+ extra failures out of 1800+ tests).
We so far presumed that this is caused by l
39 matches
Mail list logo
