On Jan 31, 2012, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think we can do that right away without trouble, and get it onto
> release branches too.
*nod*
Want me to prepare a s/-fno-inline-functions/-fno-inline/ patch?
> On the libc side more generally, I've become skeptical that the generic C
> version of in
On Jan 31, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> What's probably confusing you is the "Don't pay attention to the
> @code{inline} keyword" sentence.
What really set me down the wrong patch were the comments in
gcc/common.opt, that got me the idea it had something to do with C99
inline.
; Nonzero mean
Hi,
The Linux binutils source tar ball is available from:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/devel/binutils/
again. I also uploaded tar balls for some older releases, dating back
to release 2.21.51.0.5.
H.J.
---
This is the beta release of binutils 2.22.52.0.1 for Linux, which is
based on bin
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20120131 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20120131/
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 Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> From Richard's response it sounds like there is an easy fix that's
> compatible with both old and new GCC (-fno-inline). I think we can do that
> right away without trouble, and get it onto release branches too.
>
> On the libc side more
>From Richard's response it sounds like there is an easy fix that's
compatible with both old and new GCC (-fno-inline). I think we can do that
right away without trouble, and get it onto release branches too.
On the libc side more generally, I've become skeptical that the generic C
version of ini
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:15 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly enough:
>> $ cat q.c
>> __has_builtin
>> $ clang -E q.c
>>
>
> Yes, that’s what I was asking.
>
> It makes me think that the old CPP predicates (info "(gcc) Obsolete
> Features") would be more appropriate than compiler ma
On Jan 31, 2012, at 4:58 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
The docs say that ‘__has_builtin’ & co. are macros. What do they expand
to?
>>>
>>> 0 or 1.
>>
>> I understand. To put it another way, how are they defined?
>
> Compiler magic, like __LINE__ for instance? I am still not sure what you a
Hi,
In order to pursue an optimization I am explicitly defining a cbranchhi4
and manually expanding to calls to cbranchqi4 or similar.
Do I need to attach probabilities notes to jumps emitted during the
expand phase?
Cheers,
--
PMatos
On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 17:29 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 04:19 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> > On 01/09/2012 04:04 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 15:55 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> >>> On my side, I was able to fix the problem with genome but the patch is
>
Hi,
Marc Glisse skribis:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Chris Lattner skribis:
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>
Hello,
Chris Lattner skribis:
> If fact, some do:
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensi
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi,
Chris Lattner skribis:
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hello,
Chris Lattner skribis:
If fact, some do:
http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LanguageExtensions.html#feature_check
That seems like a very useful approach to solve
Hi,
Chris Lattner skribis:
> On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:56 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Chris Lattner skribis:
>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 5:24 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
On 21 January 2012 00:32, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-01-20 23:28:07 +, Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> glibc 2.15 won't build with GCC 4.7ish on ppc64: -fno-inline-functions
> is no longer enough to prevent call_gmon_start from being inlined into
> initfini.c's _init, as required by glibc's somewhat convoluted
> compilation of initfini.c int
On 30/01/2012 23:59, Zoltán Kócsi wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Until gcc gets a feature allowing it to whack the programmer on the back
of the head with Knuth's "The Art of Computer Programming" for writing
such stupid code that relies on the behaviour of volatile "a = b = 0;",
then a warning see
15 matches
Mail list logo
