Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070307 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070307/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi Tobias,
What is the proper way to obtain this information?
I fear the answer to this question is "there's no way". We already
discussed that a few months ago, at the thread starting here: http://
gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00346.html From private discussion,
with Paul Brook & Josep
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
> etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of stdint.h.
>
> Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
> with cross compilations. (It
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
Does -fobjc-gc work for you now? It's been on mainline for a while
now. As for accelerated message dispatch, I'm not exactly certain
which feature you're
Option may be recognized. But it entirely depends on Leopard runtime
for support.
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 19:21, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
> etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of
> stdint.h.
>
> Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
> with cross compilations
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:32PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not
> >work with cross compilations.
>
> Sounds like a bug? When I try it on my compiler, it works just fine
> natively and w
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not
work with cross compilations.
Sounds like a bug? When I try it on my compiler, it works just fine
natively and with cross compilations. I'd file a bug report. If it
is an OS bug,
On 3/6/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:05:06AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> I have used "strace -f" to check where linker looked for -lqt-mt. From
> what I have observed, it seems that ld didn't use
> $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf.
Well, it's supposed to, so I s
Hi,
gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of stdint.h.
Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
with cross compilations. (It actually fails already for -m32 on x86-64.)
On the othe
On Mar 7, 2007, at 4:44 AM, Michael Hopkins wrote:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working in the gcc compiler?
I'd like to contribute all the Objective-C front end features in time
for 4.3, unfortunately, I've not started doing that work. I'm hoping
we'
On Mar 7, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Hi Michael,
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working
in the gcc compiler?
It is work in progress. For current status, you can check out Apple's
4.0
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 20:45 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> However, I do think that it's important to eliminate some of the 139
> open P2 and P1 regressions [2], especially those P1 regressions which
> did not appear in GCC 4.1.x.
There are a handful I've been involved with which are labeled as
4.
On 07 March 2007 17:44, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
> questioning Paul why he said: "I consider rejecting mixed
> code/declarations to be a feature"
> I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
> containing //,
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As explained: because it makes it impossible for users running old systems
with pre-C99 compilers to build gcc and thereby excludes them from the world
of free software, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.
Well, I surely und
On 07 March 2007 16:16, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow
Hi Michael,
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working
in the gcc compiler?
2) Will their garbage collection & accelerated message dispatch
mechanisms
also be supported?
Fairborz is working on them, I ima
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:08AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
>
> Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
Or the release notes could just say something like:
* New warning
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
>
> You need t
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
> What am I missing?
You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
You need to debug one of cc1/cc1plus/jc1
Thank you. It seems I've not fo
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
> What am I missing?
You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
You need to debug one of cc1/cc1plus/jc1
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 10:36:
> Is this normal? It seems there are no basic blocks set for the
> functions. Probably my pass is being run before the bbs are created?
Looks like it. Set a breakpoint in build_tree_cfg and your functio
On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to ge
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 10:36:
> Is this normal? It seems there are no basic blocks set for the
> functions. Probably my pass is being run before the bbs are created?
Looks like it. Set a breakpoint in build_tree_cfg and your function.
If gdb stops in your function first, you found the
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Maybe, but I consider rejecti
On 3/2/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/02/07 10:12:
> In an IPA pass, for each CFG node, I have a tree decl member from
> which I can access the return type, name of the function, argument
> names and its types, but I can't seem to find a way to get the
>
On 07 March 2007 15:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Moreover, for some reason when using malloc, a lot of poisonous malloc
> warning come up which are solved by using xmalloc instead, which is
> another thing I cannot figure out. What is better in xmalloc than
> malloc?
Take a look, the source for
On 07 March 2007 15:05, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a seco
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> > bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a s
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
>
> Nick
Effectively that's what
Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Nick
> ---Original Message---
> From: Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:
Hi all
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available & working
in the gcc compiler?
2) Will their garbage collection & accelerated message dispatch mechanisms
also be supported?
Thx & please feel free to CC me
Michael
_/
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
-- Gaby
Hi,
Noticed libg2c.a is missing in /lib in 4.1.1 hierarchy , whats
the equivalent of libg2c.a in gcc 4.1.1 , any pointers .
Satya
On 06 Mar 2007 21:48:14 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >> After reviewing a
Hi all,
Also wanted to announce that we are currently developing run-time adaptation
techniques for GCC for statically compiled programs with varying context
and behavior. Our technique relies on function/loop versioning and
static low-overhead monitoring and adaptation routines.
We extend our pr
36 matches
Mail list logo
