On 02/18/2010 07:46 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Jason Merrill wrote:
I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
--with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we would
only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support.
On 2/18/2010 4:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
But maybe I didn't ask the right question: can any x86 experts comment on
recently made x86 CPUs that would not function correctly with code
produced by --with-arch=i486? Are there any?
All CPUs still in production are at least SSE3 capable, unless som
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:37PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> >> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we would
> only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can we
> reconsider the default for 4.5?
On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
--with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
would only need to bump the default to i486 to get at
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
> would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can
> we reconsider
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 18/02/2010 07:17, Jie Zhang wrote:
>> We are trying to add a 16bit integer division library function for
>> bfin port. I just found GCC didn't do integral promotions when calling
>> library function.
>
>> Is this expected?
>
> I wasn't aware
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100218 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100218/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
--with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can
we reconsider the default for 4.5?
Jason
On 18/02/2010 07:17, Jie Zhang wrote:
> We are trying to add a 16bit integer division library function for
> bfin port. I just found GCC didn't do integral promotions when calling
> library function.
> Is this expected?
I wasn't aware of this myself, but it kind-of makes sense given the way tha
On 18/02/2010 10:20, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> I don't know, what is considered to be a showstopper,
>> but bad things happen inside 4.5 (x86-32/Cygwin + a
>> lot of SSE). In the last weekend I was able to:
>
On 18/02/2010 10:11, Naveen H. S wrote:
> Issue
> -
> Float variables are prefixed by some garbage value in printf function.
> However, the values are generated correctly when seen through GDB.
> Ex:- If the expected result is 0.456
> RUN OUTPUT - 0.00456 (INCORRECT)
> GDB OUTPUT - 0.456
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 08:21, Elijah Simonov wrote:
> i want to subscrite
Please visit http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html#subscribe
Diego.
i want to subscrite
Hi,
I'd like to resolve one way or another an mmix issue in the library:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21321
which is even marked as regression, and I need feedback / help from an
active mmix maintainer, but apprently Hans-Peter Nilsson is not
replying. Any hints, suggestions?
T
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Note that all regressions from 4.4 that are visible with release
>> checking and valid input should be considered P1 first
>
> I don't know, what is considered to be a showstopper,
> but bad things happen inside
Hi,
We are porting gcc toolchain for a new target. Most of the functionalities
are working fine as expected. However, there is one issue regarding the
printf function.
Issue
-
Float variables are prefixed by some garbage value in printf function.
However, the values are generated correctly
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Note that all regressions from 4.4 that are visible with release
> checking and valid input should be considered P1 first
I don't know, what is considered to be a showstopper,
but bad things happen inside 4.5 (x86-32/Cygwin + a
lot of SSE). In the last weekend I was able
18 matches
Mail list logo
