On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 12-09-10 6:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
>> discussing about live range shrink, like:
>
> As I know Ghassan preferred to work on Open64 that time in AMD and neve
On 12-09-10 6:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hi,
I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
discussing about live range shrink, like:
As I know Ghassan preferred to work on Open64 that time in AMD and never
touched GCC.
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00188.htm
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:20 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Is it possible for you to post your work-in-progress code somewhere?
>
> Attached.
Many thanks for posting this! Various comments inline below.
> > I know that you don't feel
On 09/10/2012 01:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> In function maybe_record_trace_start, there is a check:
>
> /* We ought to have the same state incoming to a given trace no
> matter how we arrive at the trace. Anything else means we've
> got some kind of optimization error.
On 09/04/2012 02:25 PM, Jens Rosenboom wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Do you maybe know how to find out (in legitimize_pic_address() and in
> arm_assemble_integer()) whether an address (rtx) is in text/rodata or
> in data?
You need to catch this much earlier than this. See the encode_section_info
hook
Hi,
The big change is to fix STB_SECONDARY support:
a. Generate STB_SECONDARY symbols in DSO by default.
b. Properly handle STB_SECONDAY symbols when linking with archive.
c. Don't allow .weak directive to override .secondary directive.
It may be used to fix the libpthread.a issue in gl
On 10 September 2012 16:54, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Aaron Gray
> wrote:
>
>> What I am looking to obtain is isolating the C++ parser with no real
>> semantic changes, just isolating the interfaces in order that the
>> parser be reusable as a library component
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> What I am looking to obtain is isolating the C++ parser with no real
> semantic changes, just isolating the interfaces in order that the
> parser be reusable as a library component and allow migration to other
> solutions.
Yes, for that, you
On 10 September 2012 15:53, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> [ I am adding back GCC mailing list in the CC: as this would be useful
> for other contributors. ]
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Gray
> wrote:
>> On 10 September 2012 15:25, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 201
Hi David,
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
> Is it possible for you to post your work-in-progress code somewhere?
Attached.
> I know that you don't feel it's ready for committing, but I would find
> it helpful - I'm interested in understanding the general approach,
> rather than seei
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 04:53 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> It is not clear what the benefit is to move existing perfectly working
>> internal non-member functions to being member functions a huge struct.
>
>
> I did this with cxx_eval_constant_ex
2012/9/10 Kai Tietz:
> Hi,
>
> well, those failures are caused by -Werror switch. You should turn it
> off.
You mean '--disable-werror'? If so, then I use this option.
> Nevertheless there is already a bug report about this. See bug
> 53912 with title "[Bug bootstrap/53912] [4.7/4.8 Regression]
On 09/10/2012 04:53 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It is not clear what the benefit is to move existing perfectly working
internal non-member functions to being member functions a huge struct.
I did this with cxx_eval_constant_expression and the functions it uses
internally. The advantage is th
[ I am adding back GCC mailing list in the CC: as this would be useful
for other contributors. ]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> On 10 September 2012 15:25, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Aaron Gray
>> wrote:
>> > On 10 September 2012 14:35
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 13:54 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Micha was also working on the proposed introspection API, I blame him
> > for not posting anything about this despite it's being "ready" since a
> > few month
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
> any real feedback on them :-
>
>
> [PATCH] Remove dependency of cp/cp-lang.c on cp/parser.h
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02010.html
I will r
On 2012-09-08 15:44 , Kamran Amini wrote:
Hello GCC guys
I am really interested to be a part of GCC development team, specially
G++ and C++11.
In addition to what Basile recommended, I would suggest visiting
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted. It contain several pointers to
documents to
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
> any real feedback on them :-
[...]
> [PATCH] C++'ization of cp/parser.c/h
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02018.html
>
>
> This last patch possi
Hi,
I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
any real feedback on them :-
[PATCH] Remove dependency of cp/cp-lang.c on cp/parser.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02010.html
[PATCH] limited C++ parsing support for gengtype
http://gcc.gnu.org/m
Hi,
well, those failures are caused by -Werror switch. You should turn it
off. Nevertheless there is already a bug report about this. See bug
53912 with title "[Bug bootstrap/53912] [4.7/4.8 Regression] bootstrap
fails using default c++ mode in stage 2 and 3 for native
x86_64-w64-mingw32"
Rega
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> Micha was also working on the proposed introspection API, I blame him
> for not posting anything about this despite it's being "ready" since a
> few months...
He. I didn't yet come to make the changes about operand inspectors
Hi,
I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
discussing about live range shrink, like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00248.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00188.html
In these messages many people showed interests in LRS, in or out of
sched1 pa
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> After a hiatus, I've restarted work on an API for GCC plugins -
> specifically, a C API (given that my plugin is written in C, I have more
> interest in that than a C++ API).
>
> BTW, how many other GCC plugins are written in C?
>
> It's still
Hi,
I am enabling shrink-wrap for ARM. But get lots of ICE during make
check for THUMB2:
internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2227.
Shrink-wrap allows jumps in epilogues. It will generate a common
simple_return block as the destination for multi-branches. More
det
24 matches
Mail list logo
