gcj -v --help: ecj switches

Hello, I have a patch (accompanying those other ones on gcc-paches) to fix --- a/gcc/java/lang.opt +++ b/gcc/java/lang.opt @@ -209,212 +209,213 @@ Java ; ; Warnings handled by ecj. -; FIXME: document them ; but I did start off with the help texts from

Re: Announce: MPFR 2.4.1 is released

Hi Kaveh, On 2009-02-27 10:40:07 -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Thanks for the note. I grep'ed the gcc sources and I don't see any uses > of mpfr_snprintf or mpfr_vsnprintf. So I don't believe any change in the > minimum mpfr version checks (either "required" version or "recommended" > version)

[wwwdocs] Re: Status of the DLX backend for GCC?

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Peter Bergner wrote: >> The reason I asked was that we have that reference from our site to that >> URL and I failed to find any replacement so far. The first two hits that >> I get in Google actually are mails by you in the gcc archives. ;-) >> >> I guess we'll just have to r

Getting better understanding of constraints and reload

Hi, I already submitted some patches for the avr backend and have still a bunch of ideas for implrovements. However, I am still unsure about insn constraints and what they must look like to work in any situation, and I want to learn more about that subject before commnuity tars and feathers me

Re: Old GCC-on-Tru64 bugfix needs applying

On Sat, 2009 Feb 28 08:53:49 -0800, Bruce Korb wrote: > Based on my read of the bug report, it looks like I had meant to "approve" > Daniel's patch and expected him to install it. It looks like I managed > to miss the ``Will you take care of committing the final patch please?'' > comment. Sorry a

Re: GCC Build failure

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> In file included from /usr/include/features.h:354, >>                 from /usr/include/stdio.h:28, >>                 from ../../../../libgcc/../gcc/tsystem.h:90, >>                 from ../../../../libgcc/../gcc/libgcc2.c:34: >> /usr/include/gnu

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> > But I'm against doing more than fixing the merge glitch at this stage. > > I think that the Windows maintainers should have the final word though. This change concerns more Ada than the windows port but in any case, I can't imagine such change being put in stage 4. Arno

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> But I'm against doing more than fixing the merge glitch at this stage. I think that the Windows maintainers should have the final word though. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> > I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works. > > We know that it works with our sources and GCC 4.3. We have no idea how > well it works with GCC 4.4: we don't do mingw builds there. BTW, we have local patches not yet integrated that are needed for proper ZCX support,

Re: GCC Build failure

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Bruce Korb wrote: > Hi all, > > This got far enough along to run fixincludes, so I can test this > ``Old GCC-on-Tru64 bugfix'' thing, but still.  Using current SVN source: > > # If this is the top-level multilib, build all the other > # multilibs. > /home/gnu/proj/

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works. We know that it works with our sources and GCC 4.3. We have no idea how well it works with GCC 4.4: we don't do mingw builds there. > It's not just cygwin, it's also mingw. The Ada compiler is quite broken on > Windows sinc

GCC Build failure

Hi all, This got far enough along to run fixincludes, so I can test this ``Old GCC-on-Tru64 bugfix'' thing, but still. Using current SVN source: # If this is the top-level multilib, build all the other # multilibs. /home/gnu/proj/gcc/_bld/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/gnu/proj/gcc/_bld/./gcc/ -B/usr/local

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> Because stage 4 is not the right stage for such experiments. I doubt that this can be deemed an experiment, we know that it works. > Also, we're talking about cygwin AFAIK, which we've never built/tested, > so we have no idea what the state of things are there. It's not just cygwin, it's also

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> OK, here are the results with only -O2. Thanks, not bad modulo the cd chapter. > All the errors in chapter cd are due to a build problem on my machine (the > test programs cannot find spprt13.ads). It is supposed to be generated during the preparation phase. > Altough I already provide a link

Re: Old GCC-on-Tru64 bugfix needs applying

Based on my read of the bug report, it looks like I had meant to "approve" Daniel's patch and expected him to install it. It looks like I managed to miss the ``Will you take care of committing the final patch please?'' comment. Sorry about that. By February 2007, I was no longer getting Veritas

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

Would you mind running it again with the default flags (-O2)? We don't have comparison points with these non-standard flags. OK, here are the results with only -O2. All the errors in chapter cd are due to a build problem on my machine (the test programs cannot find spprt13.ads). Altough I a

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> Here are the ACATS results running gnat with gccflags="-O3 > -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions" Thanks a lot. Would you mind running it again with the default flags (-O2)? We don't have comparison points with these non-standard flags. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

OK, I rebuilt gnat-4.3.3 on MinGW using ZCX_By_Default = False (system-mingw.ads) and no EH_MECHANISM line in Makefile.in for MinGW. I also increased the default stack size in system-mingw.ads to pragma Linker_Options ("-Wl,--stack=0x280"); Here are the ACATS results running gnat with gcc

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

> IMO you cannot backport such an incompatible change to a release branch. If > the Windows maintainers are confident enough with it and given that we know > there is no fundamental issue as far as GNAT is concerned, why not try? Because stage 4 is not the right stage for such experiments. Als

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 10:51 +, Dave Korn wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote: > >>> Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On > >>> the > >>> other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline befo

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

Dave Korn wrote: > I've attached my current Ada patches No I haven't! I mean, Now I have! cheers, DaveK --- origsrc/gcc-4.3.2/gcc/ada/Makefile.in 2008-02-13 19:04:53.0 + +++ src/gcc-4.3.2/gcc/ada/Makefile.in 2009-02-21 20:13:03.40625 + @@ -198,6 +198,10 @@ #

Re: GNAT vs DW2/ZCX EH.

Laurent GUERBY wrote: > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 21:04 +0100, Rolf Ebert wrote: >>> Right, that's why the change should be reverted on the 4.3 branch. On the >>> other hand, if you can get the ZCX support to work on the mainline before >>> 4.4.0 is released, we could try there. >> FYI, I have just

Re: New no-undefined-overflow branch

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > We will be reading IL containing both overflow and non-overflow > > operations. We should define the combination rules for them. > > The rules are simple: > > * No transformation (of arithmetic operat

Re: New no-undefined-overflow branch

On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 06:05, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > >  There shall be no construct in the GIMPLE IL that invokes > >  undefined behavior. > > Excellent! Thanks for starting this branch. > > > Thus, from now on integer overflow is defined a

Re: Old GCC-on-Tru64 bugfix needs applying

I have seen Bruce very response, even recently, but your mail does not have any direct reference to [fixincl] in the subject, so let me include him explicitly. Gerald On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Daniel Richard G. wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16300 > > This bug was originally rep