On 10/29/2011 08:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager writes:
I'm seeing a build failure when building a bootstrap gcc
because it is attempting to build target-libiberty. This
is happening for --target=powerpc-linux with the gcc-4.6.1
release and --target=microblaze-xilinx-elf with gc
gcc.dg/pr48616.c segfaults on sparc as of a day or two ago
vectorizable_shift() crashes because op1_vectype is NULL and
we hit this code path:
/* Vector shifted by vector. */
if (!scalar_shift_arg)
{
optab = optab_for_tree_code (code, vectype, optab_vector);
if (vect_print_d
Michael Eager writes:
> I'm seeing a build failure when building a bootstrap gcc
> because it is attempting to build target-libiberty. This
> is happening for --target=powerpc-linux with the gcc-4.6.1
> release and --target=microblaze-xilinx-elf with gcc-4.6.2.
>
> Target-libiberty is not being
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20111029 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20111029/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
The Mercurial mirror at http://gcc.gnu.org/hg/gcc was last updated 11 months
ago at SVN r166522.
I think it can only cause confusion to have the mirror live but stale; ought it
to be turned off?
Hi --
I'm seeing a build failure when building a bootstrap gcc
because it is attempting to build target-libiberty. This
is happening for --target=powerpc-linux with the gcc-4.6.1
release and --target=microblaze-xilinx-elf with gcc-4.6.2.
Target-libiberty is not being built when building from th
The Mercurial mirror at http://gcc.gnu.org/hg/gcc was last updated 11 months
ago at SVN r166522.
I think it can only cause confusion to have the mirror live but stale; ought it
to be turned off?
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/29/2011 05:41 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> It seems cc0 should probably still be preferred for CISC-style
>> architectures like the MSP430. I'll give that approach a try.
>
> I think that's somewhat unfair. Take a close look at the
On 10/29/2011 05:41 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> It seems cc0 should probably still be preferred for CISC-style
> architectures like the MSP430. I'll give that approach a try.
I think that's somewhat unfair. Take a close look at the RX and
mn10300 ports -- they're what I would call the most up-to-da
On 2011-10-29 15:59, asmwarrior wrote:
> Hi, I have just a question post on GDB maillist, and some gdb guys thought it
> was related to GCC.
> see: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-10/msg00210.html
> so I forward my question to this maillist.
>
> -
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/28/2011 06:49 AM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> I'm inclined to follow sparc's lead, but is one or another of the choices
>> more likely to help combine/reload/etc do a better job?
>
> I don't know.
>
> In the case of RX, we don't model CC
11 matches
Mail list logo
