On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> >> >> So if the ssa_names are infact reused they won't be the same
>> >> >> computations.
>> >> >
>> >> > do you also check this for ssa names inside the loop (in your example,
>> >> > D.10_1?
>> >>
>> >> If we hav
Nils Pipenbrinck wrote:
> Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you
> need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And
I don't know where you get that assertion but it's not true. mpfr built
with gcc 3.4 works just fine and passes all tests in
On 2008-10-15 04:45:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile
> > > MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So
On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile
> > MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling
> > everything. And worse: You ha
Nils Pipenbrinck wrote on 14 October 2008 21:29:
> Markus Milleder wrote:
>> I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
>> problem building MPFR first.
>>
> Not entirely true:
>
> Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
> compile a non
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Richard Sandiford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even so, I'm now fairly confident that we should put GR_REGS and ACC_REGS
> in the same cover class, which was the main area of doubt. I'll therefore
> commit the MIPS port in a sec. Is it OK if I commit it to ira-me
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you
> need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And worse:
> You have to know that you have to do this. There is no information
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR
and link GCC to it.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not entirely true:
>
> Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
> compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR
> and link GCC to it.
I don't really see any
Markus Milleder wrote:
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest
GPFR
Hi Vlad,
Sorry for the slow reply.
Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Richard. Returning to accurate cost accumulation issue you found
> recently. Here is the patch fixing it. You could try, if you want, how
> MIPS will behave with it. The patch also more accurately calcula
Matt Fago wrote:
I and several other people have been bit by this, and I am currently trying to
help someone else build gcc with gmp/mpfr. It seems to me that the easiest thing
to do is an in-tree build -- it would be great if it were documented. How about
something like the below? While genera
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> It's a field in the class$ structure. class$ is initialized by creating a
>> CONSTRUCTOR tree and calling CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT for each field. The
>> DECL_INITIAL of class$ points to the CONSTRUCTOR tree.
>>
>> _CD_pp is an array of void*. These are initialized by DECL_
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
whi
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Markus Milleder wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
>>> E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
>>> So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
>>> while a 2.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
> Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
>...
> > And upgrading from 2.3.1 to let's say 3.0.0 might be a bad choice if
> > the new version contains regressions.
>
> That's why I said "before branching", this gives a time window
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
while a 2.3.2 requirement would make it much harder to build gcc 4.4 .
Much harder ?
I
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
> Much harder ?
>
> I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
> problem building MPFR first.
It is certainly an awkward annoyance, especially when you occassionally
need to build gcc on many different bo
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:08PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
> > Is there any reason not to demand 2.3.2 for GCC 4.4 ? Or even the
> newest MPFR version published before creating the GCC 4.4 release
> branch (which could be 2.3.3) ?
>
> Upgrading
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> It's a field in the class$ structure. class$ is initialized by creating a
>> CONSTRUCTOR tree and calling CONSTRUCTOR_APPEND_ELT for each field. The
>> DECL_INITIAL of class$ points to the CONSTRUCTOR tree.
>>
>> _CD_pp is an array of void*. These are initialized by DECL_
Hi,
> >> >> So if the ssa_names are infact reused they won't be the same
> >> >> computations.
> >> >
> >> > do you also check this for ssa names inside the loop (in your example,
> >> > D.10_1?
> >>
> >> If we have to reinsert for a = phi (B) . We do the following checks.
> >>
> >> 1. If the edge
21 matches
Mail list logo
