RE: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 19:26 +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > Has any of the Acovea research demonstrated whether there actually is any > such thing as a "good default set of flags in all cases"? If the results > obtained diverge significantly according to the nature/coding > style/architecture/other u

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

On 5/1/07, Aaron Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi James, > Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin. I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please. > $ cygcheck -V > cygcheck version 1.94 > System Checker for Cygwin > Copyright 1998, 1999,

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cygcheck version 1.90 Compiled on Jan 31 2007 How do I get a later version of Cygwin ? 1.90 is the current release version. It seems unlikely that later trial versions have a patch for the stdio.h conflict with C99, or changes headers to avoid warnings which by d

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:06 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > So, I think there's a middle ground between "exactly the same passes on > > all targets" and "use Acovea for every CPU to pick what -O2 means". > > Using Acovea to reveal some of the suprising, but beneficial results, > > seems like a fin

Re: gcov in cross-compile: have a patch, seek direction

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danny Backx wrote: > Gcov normally puts the files where it writes profiling information in > the source directory. In a cross-development environment, that directory > isn't always available. So I discovered when debugging testsuite failures on a remote target :

gcc-4.1-20070430 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070430 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070430/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

RE: AMD dual core opetron optimization

On 30 April 2007 20:11, kernel coder wrote: > Following are few lines of code which are consuming close to 100 > cycles.Yes this is not the forum for such questions but i think people > on linux kernel and GCC are best to answer such type of questions. If it's an issue caused by gcc generating

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

Eric Botcazou wrote: >> GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced >> and uploaded later today. > > Bad timing I'd think, Ian's controversial TYPE_MAX_VALUE patch is still there. Unlucky, but true. The most important thing, however, is that the branch is now frozen:

AMD dual core opetron optimization

hi, I'm doing trying to write some optimized code for AMD dual core opetron processor.But things are getting no where.I've installed Fedora 5 with 2.6 series Linux kernel and 4 series GCC Following are few lines of code which are consuming close to 100 cycles.Yes this is not the forum for such

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

> > I'd rather remove this "hack" and use the inliners code size estimator, like > that patch from early 2005 (attached)... Uh yes, I think it is way to go (and additionally making -O2 to autoinline small functions like -Os does). The patch would be OK if it still works ;) Even if CSiBE regress

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

Mark Mitchell wrote: > Zdenek, I would still be interested in a fix for PR31360. From the > audit trail, it looks like your patch for this PR on mainline causes > another problem (PR 31676), and that you are not working on PR 31676 > because you cannot build for powerpc-linux-gnu. (That is what

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

> GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced > and uploaded later today. Bad timing I'd think, Ian's controversial TYPE_MAX_VALUE patch is still there. -- Eric Botcazou

GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced and uploaded later today. Therefore, the GCC 4.2.0 branch is now frozen to all checkins, without my explicit permission. Zdenek, I would still be interested in a fix for PR31360. From the audit trail, it looks like your patc

FW: Trying To Reach You Monday

Hello this is Linda Taylor, and I wanted to try and reach you in the office this week. I am the secretary in the Business Management Department for CR Services and Solutions. I wanted to talk with you this week because, we are doing free analyses for companies to produce additional savings a

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

Hi James, Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin. I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please. $ cygcheck -V cygcheck version 1.94 System Checker for Cygwin Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Red Hat, Inc.

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

Richard Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on *BSD > machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash. Or (pd)?ksh, for that matter. Andreas. -- Andreas

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 22:51 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > As Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > >The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had > > >taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that > > >all the world's a Vax these days... > > > Patches welcome, I guess.