Hello Everyone,
I am trying to add new RTL into the GCC 4.0.2 OpenRISC port and I am
trying to insert them into ccertain parts of the instruction stream. For
testing, I am trying to insert it in the start of every basic block.Here
is the code for what I am trying to do.
rtx newInsn = gen_rtx_
I am finding that if I explicitly set CPPFLAGS in my gcc trunk build,
the bootstrap failure disppears however I end up with three instances of
-I/sw/include in many compile lines. This requirement of setting CPPFLAGS
did not exist up to at least 20081016. I suspect this was caused by...
---
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the steps you (or your assistant) went through was unfortunately
> unnecessarily complicated. The solution I use is to build MPFR and/or GMP
> using --disable-shared. Then you can install them anywhere you like,
I am baffled by this regression in the stage 1 bootstrap of libcpp on
current gcc trunk. When I build gcc as we always have in fink using...
../gcc-4.4-20081026/configure --prefix=/sw --prefix=/sw/lib/gcc4.4
--mandir=/sw/share/man --infodir=/sw/share/info --enable-languages=c,c++,fortra
n
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 09:51:44PM +0100, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Geoff Keating wrote:
>
>> Does everyone really type --with-mpfr= on every build? Looking@
>> gcc-testresults, I see:
>>
>> Kaveh: yes
>> Joey Ye: no
>> HJ: no
>> Guerby: yes
>> Andreas Jaeger: no
>> Dave Anglin: no
>> Janis: yes
Geoff Keating wrote:
Does everyone really type --with-mpfr= on every build? Looking at
gcc-testresults, I see:
Kaveh: yes
Joey Ye: no
HJ: no
Guerby: yes
Andreas Jaeger: no
Dave Anglin: no
Janis: yes
Gerald Pfeifer: no
Diego: yes
Andreas Krebbel: no
It seems like mostly, anyone using the
Geoff Keating wrote:
It seems like mostly, anyone using the compiler farm has to use
--with-mpfr, and otherwise people avoid it.
A random data point: if you use --with-gmp (as I have to), configure
finds an mpfr in the same subdirectory, so you might want to look for
that as well.
Cheers,
-
On 26/10/2008, at 12:25 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: "Geoff Keating" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I found that simply building MPFR in a non-default location
(configure
--prefix && make) and then pointing GCC at it with --with-mpfr, as in
the installation instructions, causes the bootstrap to fai
From: "Geoff Keating" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I found that simply building MPFR in a non-default location (configure
--prefix && make) and then pointing GCC at it with --with-mpfr, as in
the installation instructions, causes the bootstrap to fail when first
running xgcc, because xgcc can't find the
It occured to me that one way to associate a cost with an alternative is to
attach the cost to the constraint itself; and to avoid introducing yet
another syntax, the cost modifier could be an attribute of the
define_constraint (in case of overloaded constraints, it should be on the
definition whic
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 12:34:37AM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote:
> "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There appears to be no Red Hat-based distribution that comes with
> 2.3.2 or later. Even Fedora 10, which is not yet released, does not
> appear to include it.
FYI, Fedora 10 has 2.3.2
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we
> require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html
>
> I'd like to increase the "minimum" MPFR version to 2.3.0, (which ha
Hello,
> I am currently working on OpenRISC port of GCC-4.0.2, and I have to
> insert a custom RTL (which gets translated to an instruction) at fixed
> parts of the code. I have created the custom instruction (by modifying
> RTL.DEF) and then put the appropritae constraints in my .md file.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
