On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 09:31:12AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:00:07PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote:
> > 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 functio
Hi Ian
Ian Lance Taylor wrote, On 04/02/10 00:48:
Jon writes:
[.]
I've attached collect2 patch. Let me know what you think of it.
There is actually a GNU standard for --help output, and collect2 might
as well follow it.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/_002d_002dhelp.html
That
Sorry, my mistake, I'm the one with the old compiler that doesn't support the
@file option.
--Best regards,
Anthony
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Wong
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:11 PM
To: 'gcc@gcc.gnu.org'
Subject: If/When will GCC accept a compiler options file?
Hi--
It se
Hi--
It seems that GCC does not have a facility for putting command line options
into a separate file which can be passed to the GCC command.
For instance, the ARM compiler has the notion of a via file:
armcc --via
And Microsoft has a similar mechanism:
cl @my_options_file
It seems th
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Tim Prince:
All CPUs still in production are at least SSE3 capable, unless someone
can come up with one of which I'm not aware.
What about some of the AMD Geode processors?
These only support a subset of SSE1, according to
http://wiki.laptop.or
Hi Basile,
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> My intern will hopefully be "stagiaire" at my organisation CEA -
> according to my understandding, this is called "internship" in the
> USA. In France, it means that he is very little paid (much less than
> the minimal work wage) and that for many but n
* Tim Prince:
> All CPUs still in production are at least SSE3 capable, unless someone
> can come up with one of which I'm not aware.
What about some of the AMD Geode processors?
Thank you Richard. I think I will try to add them on the edges once
the basic blocks are created.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Saleel Kudchadker wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I've been trying to add a statement before the statement list before
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Saleel Kudchadker wrote:
> Hi
>
> I've been trying to add a statement before the statement list before
> the basic blocks are created. I am planning to add a function call
> statement before a user function is called and I use the instrument
> function definition a
Hi
I've been trying to add a statement before the statement list before
the basic blocks are created. I am planning to add a function call
statement before a user function is called and I use the instrument
function definition as a statement . The code and the pass compiles
properly but no functi
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:00:07PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote:
> 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 a
Hi there,
I've changed our private port of GCC to give versioned functions
better names (rather than T.0, T.1), and was wondering if there
are any existing tests that push function-versioning to the limit,
so I can test whether my naming scheme is sound.
Failing that, I'd appreciate some pointers
This will probably break building glibc, as problems building when __i686
is a predefined macro have been known since at least 2002 but none of the
many patches proposed since then have been accepted.
I imagine changing the default would help with that...and packagers can
work around it.
I t
On 02/19/2010 01:07 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 02/19/2010 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>
>> Since the TM library on ia32 is built with -m486, which doesn't have
>> 64-bit atomic operations, should we...
>>
>> a) Build with -m586 and above.
>> b) Have _ITM_transactionId_t be 32-bi
On 02/19/2010 12:38 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Since the TM library on ia32 is built with -m486, which doesn't have
> 64-bit atomic operations, should we...
>
> a) Build with -m586 and above.
> b) Have _ITM_transactionId_t be 32-bit quantities.
> c) Come up with some locking solu
libitm.so won't build on ia32 because of an undefined reference to
__sync_add_and_fetch_8.
This is the build failure Pearly encountered here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01201.html
What happens is that we try to do a __sync_and_fetch() on global_tid,
which is of type _IT
HEllo All
I might have perhaps (this is a possibility, not certain) in june 2010 a
student as an intern "stagiaire universitaire" (in French legalese), in
"3eme annee de licence informatique" (that is, 3rd year of university, after
high-school),
he is 21 year old and student at http://www.univ
17 matches
Mail list logo
