Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> So I would prefer that GCC developers do not say "We want to provide
> an API" when what is actually meant is "We will be happy if people
> contribute patches towards providing an API".
OK, I agree with that. As far as I know, nobody right now is actively
working on
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100706 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100706/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 6 July 2010 23:05, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> I don't disagree with your comments too, Manuel.
>
> I spent some years developing plugin framework for pass selection and
> reordering, and later we managed to get minimal hooks to mainline GCC based on
> our needs. Of course, I personally would like
I don't disagree with your comments too, Manuel.
I spent some years developing plugin framework for pass selection and
reordering, and later we managed to get minimal hooks to mainline GCC based on
our needs. Of course, I personally would like to see a coherent and stable API
for most of the part
I'd like to compile a complete list of targets affected by changes in
emulated TLS.
*-*-darwin*
hppa64-hp-hpux11.11
cris-*-elf
I think also;
*-*-mingw
*-*-cygwin
could people please add to the list/confirm as appropriate?
thanks
Iain
... and time report
Execution times (seconds)
garbage collection: 12.48 ( 2%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 12.50 ( 2%) wall
0 kB ( 0%) ggc
callgraph optimization: 0.21 ( 0%) usr 0.00 ( 0%) sys 0.21 ( 0%) wall
2743 kB ( 0%) ggc
varpool construction : 0.97 ( 0%) usr 0.02 ( 0%)
> > On 06/30/2010 02:26 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 14:23 -0700, Taras Glek wrote:
> >>
> >>> I tried 4.5 -O2 and it's actually faster than 4.3 -Os.
> >>>
> >>> I am happy that -O2 performance is actually pretty good, but -Os
> >>> regression is going to hurt on m
On 6 July 2010 17:54, Grigori Fursin wrote:
>>I view the current plug-in mechanism as a prototype. I think that we
>>should be working toward a much more robust mechanism, similar to
>>plug-ins for Eclipse, Firefox, MySQL, or other popular software stacks.
>>I certainly see no reason that plug-in
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I'm personally reluctant to codify it, because it's really hard to
> codify good judgment. But if you say in your patch how you tested it,
> the reviewers should be able to consider whether that is sufficient.
I agree.
I always claim that my most valuable contribution
Hi Richard,
I can image a few ways to go from here:
- leave as is, fix this when it really bothers us (risk: exchange
a known
problem for unknown hard-to-debug and/or hard-to-reproduce problems)
- instrument if_marked functions like the one for
value_expr_for_decl to
assert if the from fie
> "Basile" == Basile Starynkevitch writes:
Basile> My understanding of the description of the tag GTY option in
Basile> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/GTY-Options.html#GTY-Options
Basile> is that a given discriminated union case can have several
Basile> tags.
It seems like a reasonable
>I view the current plug-in mechanism as a prototype. I think that we
>should be working toward a much more robust mechanism, similar to
>plug-ins for Eclipse, Firefox, MySQL, or other popular software stacks.
>I certainly see no reason that plug-ins cannot work on any system that
>has something r
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> The main utility of plugins is that they make developing, testing and
> deploying modifications to gcc easier.
This may be true now, but I certainly hope it will not be true in future.
I view the current plug-in mechanism as a prototype. I think that we
should be workin
Hi,
i just successfully built GCC 4.5.0 on AIX 5.3 using the following
commands:
setenv LDR_CNTRL MAXDATA=0x5000
../gcc-4.5.0/configure --disable-multilib --with-gmp=/usr/local
make bootstrap-lean
make install
$ config.guess
powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0
$ gcc -
> The attached patch still has some rough edges, like missing main gcc
> ChangeLog, missing documentation, no dso building implemented (should
> eventually work both in-tree to be installed in the plugin dir and
> out-of-tree with a previous built compiler).
>
Well, I definitely owe you some b
Em 06-07-2010 07:46, Paolo Carlini escreveu:
> That work is incomplete, cannot be merged as-is:
Thanks for pointing it out for me, Paolo.
[]s,
rod
On 07/05/2010 09:57 PM, Rodolfo Schulz de Lima wrote:
> Hi, I'd like to know if there's plans to merge Pedro Lamarão's
> implementation of delegating constructors into trunk.
That work is incomplete, cannot be merged as-is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43674
Paolo.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>> The tree_map_base_marked_p checks ggc_marked_p on the from field. During
>>> ggc_scan_cache_tab, if the from field is live, also the to field is
>>> marked
>>> live.
>>> I wrote some code to do sanity testing and found a similar scena
On Tue, 6 Jul 2010, Alex Turjan wrote:
> Hi,
> Is there functionality in gcc based on which the CFG can be traversed in
> such a way that a node gets visited once all of its predecessors have been
> visited?
(Assuming you mean when there are no loops)
Yes, see post_order_compute in cfganal.c.
Hi,
Is there functionality in gcc based on which the CFG can be traversed in such a
way that a node gets visited once all of its predecessors have been visited?
thanks,
Alex
20 matches
Mail list logo
