Hi Jakub,
We are working on the following.
1. bdver3 enablement. Review completed. Changes to be incorporated and
checked-in.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01131.html
2. btver2 basic enablement is done
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-07/msg01018.html)/
Scheduler descript
On 30 October 2012 00:30, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or
>> .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the
>> cc1plus compiler. Please read
>> http://gcc.gnu.o
On 29 October 2012 23:44, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++.
>
> So, in my sample code, how do you compile it with gcc?
>
Put it in a file that ends with .cc or .cpp or .C or .cxx or any of
the
On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or
> .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the
> cc1plus compiler. Please read
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Invoking-G_002b_002b.html
I didn't
On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++.
So, in my sample code, how do you compile it with gcc?
Richard Biener schrieb:
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I think the fix should be to give an early error message for compiling
from stdin with -save-temps, and then stop the compilation because there's
nowhere to save the intermediate files (given the lack of an input file
name).
Alternatively, inform
Hi, below is a patch for Bug 55028. My tests link now, yet, more symbols
may need to be exposed...
Could someone check please?
Thanks!
Oleg.
--- abi/pre/gnu-versioned-namespace.ver (revision 192953)
+++ abi/pre/gnu-versioned-namespace.ver (working copy)
@@ -116,6 +116,13 @@
_ZN11__gnu_debug19_
Asan functionality is almost complete. The only missing feature is the
handling of bit-fields. In addition there is the need for some option
and attribute change, but those are minor. I think it is now a good
time to merge the functionality into trunk. After that, more
extensive testings can be d
On 29 October 2012 16:08, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>>>
>>> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
>>> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
>>
>
From: Eric Botcazou
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 20:25:15 +0100
>> I'd like to get the Sparc cbcond stuff in (3 revisions posted) which
>> is waiting for Eric B. to do some Solaris specific work.
>>
>> I'd also like to enable LRA for at least 32-bit sparc, even if I can't
>> find the time to work on a
On 10/29/2012 12:07 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
* [Testing]
It seems like we still lack a (good) test harness for asan. Most (if
not all) of the patches we sent were tested by inspecting the gimple
and assembly output on testing some random input files.
So has anyone run this asan implementation
> I'd like to get the Sparc cbcond stuff in (3 revisions posted) which
> is waiting for Eric B. to do some Solaris specific work.
>
> I'd also like to enable LRA for at least 32-bit sparc, even if I can't
> find the time to work on auditing 64-bit completely.
End of stage #1 isn't a hard limit fo
From: Jakub Jelinek
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:56:42 +0100
> I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
> on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
> like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
> posted before the freeze, but
Hello,
This message is just an excuse to kick off a discussion about how we
should proceed to prepare the merge of the AddressSanitizer branch
into trunk, as the not-yet known date of the stage1 closing seems to
be approaching fast now.
Here are some topics that I think would be interesting to di
Status
==
I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development
on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd
like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon. Patches
posted before the freeze, but reviewed shortly after the freeze, may
still go in, f
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 3:56 AM, nat...@t-online.de wrote:
> I find this array bound check too hard:
Please file a bug report.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
Thanks.
Ian
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Caroline Tice wrote:
>
> Actually, I did have to edit the Makefile.in slightly. When I
> generate it with automake, it automatically adds the lines:
>
> libvtv_init_la_LIBADD =
> libvtv_init_la_SOURCES = libvtv_init.c
> libvtv_init_la_OBJECTS = libvtv_init.lo
> l
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> I'm sure they could be rewritten in C. GNUs libc choose to do them in C++
> probably because C++ just gives a nicer way to do things.
In the GNU libc __cxa_atexit and __cxa_finalize are written in C, not C++.
We should not add C++ code to
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
>> > Ian Tayler (in private communication) asked that I get the part of the
>> > build log that shows the .so and .a files being b
On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> Some of the support you are adding is equivalent to code in
> libgcc/crtstuff.c. My question was if it is possible to re-use some
> of that code for the new AIX support.
>
> Is the code really C++? Both cxa_atexit.cc and cxa_finalize.cc ar
On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>>
>> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
>> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
>
> That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just
Hi,
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Caroline Tice wrote:
> > Ian Tayler (in private communication) asked that I get the part of the
> > build log that shows the .so and .a files being built and send it to
> > the list. Here it is.
>
> I see the p
On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>
> My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used
> (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc.
That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just driver programs
that invoke the appropriate compiler program, wh
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Alternatively, inform the user that -save-temps is ignored and continue ...
> (I can see people annoyed by foreign Makefiles and tying to get at
> preprocessed
> source with CFLAGS="... -save-temps")
that also makes sense, and would be mor
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 9:54 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
> This is on my quest to add __cxa_atexit to AIX's GCC. I'm trying to port my
> patches to trunk.
>
> David said I should move my two files to libgcc.a instead of libstdc++.a
> which is where I put them before.
>
> These files define __cxa_fin
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> is this known? should I report a bug? any ideas on fixing it, I might
>> be able to do so, it should be simple.
>
> I think the fix should be to give an early error message for compiling
> from
This is on my quest to add __cxa_atexit to AIX's GCC. I'm trying to port my
patches to trunk.
David said I should move my two files to libgcc.a instead of libstdc++.a which
is where I put them before.
These files define __cxa_finalize and __cxa_atexit. These files are mostly
from GNU's libc.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Creating the temp file yourself has the advantage you know what the
> name is, whereas if GCC creates it you need to look for new files or
> check timestamps to find what name it used.
so we can have three options that I would suggest :
I find this array bound check too hard:
./compiler/gcc-4.8.0-snap/bin/gcc c1.c -O3 -c -Wall
c1.c: In function main:
c1.c:15:22: warning: array subscript is above array bounds
[-Warray-bounds]
if (!ab_pid[index])
^
extern unsigned char ab_pid_count,old_rfcb_pi
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 09:25, Mike Dupont wrote:
>> Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ?
>> something with the timestamp as well.
>> I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable?
>
> Why n
On 29 October 2012 10:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 October 2012 09:25, Mike Dupont wrote:
>> Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ?
>> something with the timestamp as well.
>> I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable?
>
> Why not just w
On 29 October 2012 09:25, Mike Dupont wrote:
> Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ?
> something with the timestamp as well.
> I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable?
Why not just write the source to the temp file then invoke GCC on it?
David Miller writes:
> On sparc a simple test like (from the PR tree-optimization/53410 testcase):
>
>
> typedef int V __attribute__((vector_size (4 * sizeof (int;
> typedef unsigned int W __attribute__((vector_size (4 * sizeof (int;
>
> void
> f10 (W *p, W *q)
> {
>
Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ?
something with the timestamp as well.
I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable?
mike
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>> is this known
34 matches
Mail list logo
