Eric Botcazou writes:
>> True, but not, as far as I can see, an explanation for why the symbols
>> are hidden. Hiding the symbols doesn't fix the problem of having
>> multiple libgcc_eh on those platforms.
>
> Yes, it does, as it prevents libgcc_eh from being linked in shared libraries,
> thus
> True, but not, as far as I can see, an explanation for why the symbols
> are hidden. Hiding the symbols doesn't fix the problem of having
> multiple libgcc_eh on those platforms.
Yes, it does, as it prevents libgcc_eh from being linked in shared libraries,
thus forcing you to use libgcc_s.so,
* Alex Shi wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 14:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> > > > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) <
> > > > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when
> > > > you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
> > >
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> So ... is there a valid reason for this, or is this just an accident
>> of history? AFICT, this behavior dates back to 2007 as of r120429
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libgcc/static-object.mk?view=markup&pathr
>>ev=120429).
>
> At least on some platforms, you cann
Hi,
For the target that i am porting needs a cpu command line option i.e
it doesn't have a default option. Currently it takes 3 variant, say
cpu1, cpu2, cpu3.
So when i enable multilib option
MULTILIB_OPTIONS = mcpu=1/mcpu=2/mcpu=3
I get the following libgcc variants:
cpu1/libgcc
cpu2/libgcc
c
> So ... is there a valid reason for this, or is this just an accident
> of history? AFICT, this behavior dates back to 2007 as of r120429
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libgcc/static-object.mk?view=markup&pathr
>ev=120429).
At least on some platforms, you cannot have more than one libgcc_eh
Ollie Wild writes:
> So ... is there a valid reason for this, or is this just an accident
> of history? AFICT, this behavior dates back to 2007 as of r120429
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/libgcc/static-object.mk?view=markup&pathrev=120429).
No, that's not right. That change just moves th
Peng Zhao writes:
> 1. what is the purpose of the reg_note and ds_t?
The reg-note lives in the RTL. ds_t is the same information represented
as a bitflag. E.g., see how the bits are accumulated in a ds_t variable
in ask_dependency_caches.
> Where can I find information about memory dependence
> > 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
> >
> > struct sub {
> > int raw_lock;
> > char a;
> > };
> > struct foo {
> > struct sub z;
> > int slk;
> > char y;
> > }__attribute__((packed));
> >
> > struct foo f1;
> >
> > __
For reasons outside the scope of this discussion, we're experimenting
with statically linking libgcc.a and libgcc_eh.a into dynamically
linked applications which depend on libc but no other dynamic
libraries. To make this work, libc needs to access a few functions
for stack unwinding inside pthrea
On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 14:39 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Alex Shi wrote:
>
> > > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) <
> > > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when
> > > you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
> >
> > reasonable!
> >
> > >> 1, it
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> Snapshot gcc-4.3-20120304 is now available on
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20120304/
What happened here? Some collateral damage while getting the
GCC 4.7 branch set up?
Gerald
On 03/07/12 10:44, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> rth, you are familiar with how this part is suppose to hook up properly...
>
> I traced the code in expand_mem_thread_fence, and the sync_synchronize is
> being emiited by:
>
> else if (synchronize_libfunc != NULL_RTX)
> emit_library_call (synch
On 03/07/2012 12:44 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 03/07/2012 10:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
I run the GCC testsuite for GCC 4.7.0 20120307
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg00782.html
I got a lot of errors like this:
FAIL: g++.dg/simulate-thread/atomics-1.C -O0 -g
On 03/07/2012 10:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello,
I run the GCC testsuite for GCC 4.7.0 20120307
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg00782.html
I got a lot of errors like this:
FAIL: g++.dg/simulate-thread/atomics-1.C -O0 -g (test for excess
errors)
148796 Excess errors
Hello,
I am a little confused by the code in sched-deps.c.
1. what is the purpose of the reg_note and ds_t? I see the function dk_to_ds,
and the comment in sched-int.h, "Dependence on instruction can be of multiple
types
(e.g. true and output). This fields enhance REG_NOTE_KIND informatio
Richard Guenther writes:
>
> I don't like specifying 'arch' at all. Instead you _always_ want architecture
> feature tests, not architecture tests. Because, does amdfam10 also cover
> bdver1? [it can't! bdver1 does no longer have 3dnow! but that's entirely
> surprising for a user]
There's stil
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
Building gmp/mpfr/mpc in tree fails in the configure-stage1-mpc step
with the current version of mpfr version 3.1.0, out since last
October, and mpc, version 0.9, out since Feb of 2011. I'm guessing
the sources moved or something.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
Hello,
I run the GCC testsuite for GCC 4.7.0 20120307
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg00782.html
I got a lot of errors like this:
FAIL: g++.dg/simulate-thread/atomics-1.C -O0 -g (test for excess errors)
148796 Excess errors:
148797
/home/sh/rtems-testing/gcc/b-arm-gcc/arm
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN
* Alex Shi wrote:
> > I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) <
> > __alignof__(rwlock_t)), otherwise it will still pass when
> > you have structure with attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
>
> reasonable!
>
> >> 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
> >>
>
> I think the check should be (__alignof__(lock) < __alignof__(rwlock_t)),
> otherwise it will still pass when you have structure with
> attribute((packed,aligned(2)))
reasonable!
>
>> 1, it is alignof bug for default gcc on my fc15 and Ubuntu 11.10 etc?
>>
>> struct sub {
>> int raw
On Wednesday 07 March 2012, Alex Shi wrote:
> Understand. thx. So is the following checking that your wanted?
> ===
> diff --git a/include/linux/rwlock.h b/include/linux/rwlock.h
> index bc2994e..64828a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/rwlock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/rwlock.h
> @@ -21,10 +21,12 @@
>
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:42 AM, Sriraman Tallam wrote:
> Hi,
>
> User directed Function Multiversioning (MV) via Function Overloading
> ===
>
> I have created a set of patches to add support for user directed
> function MV via function overloading. T
On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 09:32 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 March 2012, Alex Shi wrote:
> > I have one concern and one questions here:
> > concern: maybe the lock is in a well designed 'packed' struct, and it is
> > safe for cross lines issue. but __alignof__ will return 1;
> >
> > str
25 matches
Mail list logo
