Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090412 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090412/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> Yes, we could do that. Though a simpler form may be preferable, like
> directly specifying a constant range/anti-range instead of encoding these
> in (multiple) ASSERT_EXPRs.
>
> I will think of something.
Thanks.
> As for Ada - both function entry and exit constraints will be checked by
> the
John David Anglin writes:
> The same tests now fail on hppa. This is PR 39651. I'm fairly certain
> this was introduced by the following change:
I put this PR in the checkin that was just approved on gcc-patc...@. Please
close the bug if it fixes the failures on hppa too.
Adam
The same tests now fail on hppa. This is PR 39651. I'm fairly certain
this was introduced by the following change:
2009-03-28 Jan Hubicka
Merge from pretty-ipa:
2009-03-27 Jan Hubicka
* cgraph.c (dump_cgraph_node): Add replace output flag by process.
...
Picking up an old thread,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-03/msg00281.html
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Geert Bosch wrote:
> [...]
> Best would be to first post a design overview,
> before doing a lot of work in order to prevent spending time
> on implementing something that may turn out to have fundament
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Neumann
wrote:
> Curious. I ran both g++ variants in oprofile, and then compared the
> generated assembler code for the most critical functions.
>
> The top 1 function in both cases is pointer_set_insert, and there the
> assembler code is 100% identical (mod
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I wonder what this exception in VRP looks like?
>
> I wasn't specifically referring to an exception in VRP. I think that, when
> checks are off, it would be sufficient for gigi to emit sort of assertions
> for arguments on function entry (l
Curious. I ran both g++ variants in oprofile, and then compared the
generated assembler code for the most critical functions.
The top 1 function in both cases is pointer_set_insert, and there the
assembler code is 100% identical (module one choice between r14 and r15).
The second most critical
> I wonder what this exception in VRP looks like?
I wasn't specifically referring to an exception in VRP. I think that, when
checks are off, it would be sufficient for gigi to emit sort of assertions
for arguments on function entry (like your VRP patch did) and for return
values on function cal
> Paolo,
>
> bootstrap finished OK on alpha, regression test results are at [1].
> There are unrelated errors with "random" libc++ tests and HJ's PR39323
> testcase. Do not mind the timeouts.
Great -- my testsuite comparison also finished with not a single
difference, which is good.
Paolo
10 matches
Mail list logo
