On 5/2/07, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2007/5/2, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Joensson writes:
> > On cygwin, with D. Korn's proposed patch to cygwin's (i.e., newlib's)
> > stdio.h, I get a bootstrap failure do to comparison difference(s):
>
> Did you do a tot
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:29:29PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> The engineer's definition of "available in May" is May 1.
> The marketer's definition of "available in May" is May 30.
Nope. The engineer's definition of "available in May" depends on whether
the engineer needs the item (then it's M
Fernando Lozano wrote:
Hi Pizarro,
Today is 01 of May, the worker's day.
I've not the code in May, Fernando.
How long have i to wait?
Just google around to find when JavaOne will be held. Just as I said on
my original post.
JavaOne starts May 8.
Besides, the Worker's day is a holiday in mo
Hello,
> ii)
> In loop_version there are two calls to loop_split_edge_with
> 1. loop_split_edge_with (loop_preheader_edge (loop), NULL);
> 2. loop_split_edge_with (loop_preheader_edge (nloop), NULL);
> nloop is the versioned loop, loop is the original.
>
> loop_split_edge_with has the following
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 19:55 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> Ok, a command line option is what I have. I'll try to clean up my
> patch shortly, and see if it still applies cleanly in a recent gcc
> tree. Our current version is based on gcc-4.1.0. Or is a patch against
> that ok ?
This feature would no
On 03 May 2007 03:41, Aaron Gray wrote:
Various people run the testsuite on cygwin every now and again; check
the
gcc-testresults@ mailinglist archive.
Yes, Tim has allready run it :-
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg01540.html
I haven't done one for weeks now...
Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 4.2.0 RC3 is now available from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.2.0-20070501
This build now contains the fixes for the Ada build problem present in RC2.
At this point, I have no plans for an RC4. However, I am reviewing the
various open issues, and available
On May 3, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Bradley Lucier wrote:
What about "significant loss of accuracy" as these options
probably won't cause a nuclear reactor meltdown ;)
Well, I did some googling, and the technical term I was thinking
of was "catastrophic cancellation". So how
Dear all,
I must calculate the address of an element's array.
If the size of an element is one integer it's good.
I do like that:
new_rhs=fold_build2(PLUS_EXPR,TREE_TYPE(TREE_OPERAND(rhs,1)),
build1(ADDR_EXPR, build_pointer_type (TREE_TYPE
(array)),array),
> After gcse1 a loop body contains the following two insns. Note that gcse
> has already replaced r974 with r1218 in insn 1743 and has attached a
> REG_EQUAL note. Insn 2308 stays as a dead store - maybe thats what confuses
> the loop optimizer.
>
> (insn 2308 1740 1743 111 (set (reg/f:DI 974)
>
Bradley Lucier wrote:
What about "significant loss of accuracy" as these options probably
won't cause a nuclear reactor meltdown ;)
Well, I did some googling, and the technical term I was thinking of
was "catastrophic cancellation". So how about
Note that some mathematical routines in such
On 5/3/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 03 May 2007 16:59, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> dberlin has been mailed, but no reaction so far.
>>>
>> I was off fixing my Nintendo Wii, so i wasn't checking email :)
>
> Wait, it needed to fixe
On May 3, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Bradley Lucier wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Could you please post a patch with suggested wording about this
option (I was trying to write something similar to the warning
that icc has in its documentation about pre
Bradley Lucier wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Could you please post a patch with suggested wording about this
option (I was trying to write something similar to the warning that
icc has in its documentation about precision settings).
How about this? It perhaps refle
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 09:27 +1000, Ben Elliston wrote:
> 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.
>
> S
On May 3, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Could you please post a patch with suggested wording about this
option (I was trying to write something similar to the warning that
icc has in its documentation about precision settings).
How about this? It perhaps reflects my own biases, bu
> On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait for
> >the tuples or there will be a lot of throw-away code.
>
> If you really only can think of LTO as the reader/writer, then perhaps
> yes. But if you read back this thread,
I agree. Also, the LTO requirements and high-level design document
states that the external format should be "compiler-independent" and it
should be possible for other tools to read and write that format. Is
this still a goal? It would require a separate design with a distinct
API to read and write
On 03 May 2007 17:04, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 08:54 -0700, David Daney wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I submitted a PR, and was asked to login several times inbetween.
>>>
>>
>> I have found that clearing the browser's cookie cache for the site will
>> often cor
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 08:54 -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > 1. I submitted a PR, and was asked to login several times inbetween.
> >
>
> I have found that clearing the browser's cookie cache for the site will
> often correct this problem.
I've never had this problem befo
On 03 May 2007 16:59, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> dberlin has been mailed, but no reaction so far.
>>>
>> I was off fixing my Nintendo Wii, so i wasn't checking email :)
>
> Wait, it needed to fixed already, you should have got a PS3.
>
> -- An
On 5/3/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> dberlin has been mailed, but no reaction so far.
>
I was off fixing my Nintendo Wii, so i wasn't checking email :)
Wait, it needed to fixed already, you should have got a PS3.
-- Andrew
David Daney wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
1. I submitted a PR, and was asked to login several times inbetween.
I have found that clearing the browser's cookie cache for the site will
often correct this problem.
I should have read the rest of the thread :(. It looks like this was
alread
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
1. I submitted a PR, and was asked to login several times inbetween.
I have found that clearing the browser's cookie cache for the site will
often correct this problem.
2. Later I returned to "PR XXX", pressed "Create attachment" and ...
first was asked to login, th
Bradley Lucier wrote:
I just (re-)discovered these tables giving maximum known errors in
some libm functions when extended precision is enabled:
http://people.inf.ethz.ch/gonnet/FPAccuracy/linux/summary.html
and when the precision of the mantissa is set to 53 bits (double
precision):
http:
> To answer that, I'm afraid my patch is to blame:
>
> 2007-04-24 Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * optabs.c (set_conv_libfunc): Prefer libgcc2's __ffsMM2 functions
> over an external ffs function.
>
> We used to use ffs to implement __builtin_ffs if sizeof (int),
> even
Hi,
I'm debugging a problem with the GCC 4.1 old loop optimizer.
Consider the following example:
After gcse1 a loop body contains the following two insns. Note that gcse
has already replaced r974 with r1218 in insn 1743 and has attached a REG_EQUAL
note. Insn 2308 stays as a dead store - maybe t
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 07:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > for reasons I don't know, I am not able to create attachments in gcc's
> > bugzilla for ca the last 24hrs. When doing so, I am greeted with the
> > message below.
> >
> > -
Andreas Krebbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I'm curious about is why this didn't occur earlier?! The symbol
> is available since 2003 and I can hardly imagine that no platform was
> ever in need of it till now.
To answer that, I'm afraid my patch is to blame:
2007-04-24 Richard Sandiford
On 5/3/07, Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
for reasons I don't know, I am not able to create attachments in gcc's
bugzilla for ca the last 24hrs. When doing so, I am greeted with the
message below.
--- snip ---
Internal Error
GCC Bugzilla has suffered an internal error. Please sa
On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 10:36 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 03 May 2007 08:52, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > for reasons I don't know, I am not able to create attachments in gcc's
> > bugzilla for ca the last 24hrs. When doing so, I am greeted with the
> > message below.
> >
> > --- snip
On 03 May 2007 08:52, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> for reasons I don't know, I am not able to create attachments in gcc's
> bugzilla for ca the last 24hrs. When doing so, I am greeted with the
> message below.
>
> --- snip ---
> Internal Error
>
> GCC Bugzilla has suffered an internal error.
Hi,
for reasons I don't know, I am not able to create attachments in gcc's
bugzilla for ca the last 24hrs. When doing so, I am greeted with the
message below.
--- snip ---
Internal Error
GCC Bugzilla has suffered an internal error. Please save this page and
send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with deta
On 5/2/07, Sjodin, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. It seems like LTO will have to wait for
the tuples or there will be a lot of throw-away code.
If you really only can think of LTO as the reader/writer, then perhaps
yes. But if you read back this thread, you would
34 matches
Mail list logo
