Re: Really poor 4.5.2 results on Debian Squeeze with Intel i7

2011-01-02 Thread Eric Botcazou
> Any idea why these results would be so poor ? Because of your bootstrap settings, more precisely --enable-checking=all. -- Eric Botcazou

gcc interprets C++0x initialization construct as function declaration

2011-01-02 Thread Nathan Ridge
Hello, For the following code: struct S { int a; float b; }; struct T { T(S s) {} }; int main() { T t(S{1, 0.1}); // ERROR HERE } gcc 4.6 trunk gives the following errors (with the --std=c++0x option): decl.cpp: In function 'int main()': decl.cpp:14:10: error: expected ')' befo

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Richard Guenther writes: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylo

Re: Really poor 4.5.2 results on Debian Squeeze with Intel i7

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > For reasons unknown I ran the testsuite for well over three days before > finally giving up. This is a quad core Intel i7 with 8G of meemory and the > bootstrap took forever and the testsuite .. well the results below speak > for themselves.

Really poor 4.5.2 results on Debian Squeeze with Intel i7

2011-01-02 Thread Dennis Clarke
For reasons unknown I ran the testsuite for well over three days before finally giving up. This is a quad core Intel i7 with 8G of meemory and the bootstrap took forever and the testsuite .. well the results below speak for themselves. Any idea why these results would be so poor ? zaphod $ gas -

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Richard Guenther writes: >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >>

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Richard Guenther writes: >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >>

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Richard Guenther writes: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Richard Guenther writes: > Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. >

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > > Interesting.  Do we have a testcase that is now broken?  It seems to me See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2011-01/msg00011.html -- H.J.

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Richard Guenther writes: >>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. >>> >>> Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >>>    gcc -

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> Richard Guenther writes: >>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. >>> >>> Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >>>    gcc -o

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Basile Starynkevitch
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 13:18:22 -0800 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > No, it is not. All .go input files must be passed to go1 at once. > H.J.'s patch has indeed broken gccgo. I can confirm that. I just tried to svn merge trunk 168407 into the GCC MELT branch (which, appart from the MELT stuff, is exac

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Richard Guenther writes: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Richard Guenther writes: >> >>> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. >> >> Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >>    gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c >> Is that what we want? > > Does it? I d

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. > > Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >    gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c > Is that what we want? > No. We always do [i...@gnu-1 gcc]$ gcc -o foo.o

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Guenther writes: > >> Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. > > Wait.  That will change the behaviour of >    gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c > Is that what we want? Does it? I don't think so. Most of the combine han

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

2011-01-02 Thread Jack Howarth
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth > wrote: > > Sebastian, > >    It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at > > http://www.cloog.org/ > > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those bot

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Richard Guenther writes: > Your small patch removing have_o || is ok I guess. Wait. That will change the behaviour of gcc -o foo.o -c f1.c f2.c f3.c Is that what we want? Also, right now the gccgo driver depends on the -o behaviour to combine inputs. If that changes, the driver will need

Re: kfreebsd-gnu etc. issues

2011-01-02 Thread Robert Millan
Hi Joseph, 2011/1/1 Joseph S. Myers : > I'm trying to stop non-Linux GCC targets from using config/linux.h and > other headers whose names indicate they relate to the Linux kernel, > separating GNU-userspace and Linux-kernel configuration more cleanly. >

gcc-4.3-20110102 is now available

2011-01-02 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20110102 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20110102/ 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

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther >>> wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther >> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: > On 12/31/2010

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: > > I just found a behavior c

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: > > I just found a behavior c

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: >>> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files. Pr

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

2011-01-02 Thread Dennis Clarke
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth > wrote: >> Sebastian, >>    It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at >> http://www.cloog.org/ >> for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the >> infrastructure >> directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If s

Re: development stage timeline

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other > measure of pressure?  The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does > not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not). > > It would be good to get L

Re: Behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly files

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:40 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Jie Zhang wrote: >> On 12/31/2010 01:07 PM, Jie Zhang wrote: >>> >>> I just found a behavior change of driver on multiple input assembly >>> files. Previously (before r164357), for the command line >>> >>> gcc -o t

development stage timeline

2011-01-02 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other measure of pressure? The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not). It would be good to get Libtool updated before, but I'm not sure I can finish it this week

Re: [wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: rsync'd repo size

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Dec 31, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, DJ Delorie wrote: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/rsync.html says 17 Gb. >>> >>> I just did it, and it's up to 22 Gb. >> >> Thanks for the heads up, DJ!  I had a look, and it is, i

Re: cloog(-parma) 0.16 and ppl 0.11 in infrastructure?

2011-01-02 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Sebastian, >    It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at > http://www.cloog.org/ > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the > infrastructure > directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If so, the ne