Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-10 Thread NightStrike
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote: >> Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this. >> IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the >> manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet.

gcc-4.7-20121110 is now available

2012-11-10 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20121110 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20121110/ 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/branches

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 November 2012 22:08, Ryan Johnson wrote: > You know, somehow I'd missed that gcc would build the numerical libs for you > if they were in tree... I'd only heard about the host tools (binutils, > etc.). Does it do the same for all deps (e.g. readline) as well? No. The contrib/download_prereq

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Ryan Johnson
On 10/11/2012 4:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 10 November 2012 20:51, Dennis Clarke wrote: So 32-bit gcc works just fine. However I need a pile of libs all over the place ( gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc etc ) for this to work No you don't. If you put gmp, mpfr and mpc in the GCC source tree, or ins

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 November 2012 20:51, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > So 32-bit gcc works just fine. However I need a pile of libs all over the > place ( gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc etc ) for this to work No you don't. If you put gmp, mpfr and mpc in the GCC source tree, or install them with --disable-shared, then you d

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Ryan Johnson
On 10/11/2012 3:51 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Eric wrote: Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ? http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2 You're up against three factors here. First, the sparc64 platform ABI specifies 32-bit executables unless the user specifically a

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Dennis Clarke
> Eric wrote: > > > Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ? > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2 > You're up against three factors here. First, the sparc64 platform ABI > specifies 32-bit executables unless the user specifically asks for > 64-bit. I'm real

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Ryan Johnson
Eric wrote: > Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ? http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2 You're up against three factors here. First, the sparc64 platform ABI specifies 32-bit executables unless the user specifically asks for 64-bit. I'm really unclear on why

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-10 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, NightStrike wrote: > Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this. > IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the > manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet. gcc 5.0 should > have a complete c99. The reason gnu99 is no

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-10 Thread Andrew Haley
On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote: > Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this. > IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the > manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet. gcc 5.0 should > have a complete c99. "Should" in what se

Re: Many vectorization failures on my x86_64 lto bootstrap.

2012-11-10 Thread Toon Moene
On 11/10/2012 01:08 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: You have AVX capable machine, and --with-arch=native enables 256 bit vectorization behind your back. OK, I will make that more explicit with march=corei7-avx in my next runs. So the lto bootstrap is a red herring in this regard - good to know. Thank

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I can not see my error here and am wondering what the issue is. Obviously, if you have 32-bit object files in your build tree, you're using a 32-bit compiler. Which very likely means that you didn't set CC and CXX. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Many vectorization failures on my x86_64 lto bootstrap.

2012-11-10 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! > Compare the log file of the test runs from my lto bootstrap: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00832.html Platform: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu configure flags: ... --with-arch=native --with-tune=native > to that of a "normal" x86_64 bootstrap: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/

Many vectorization failures on my x86_64 lto bootstrap.

2012-11-10 Thread Toon Moene
Compare the log file of the test runs from my lto bootstrap: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00832.html to that of a "normal" x86_64 bootstrap: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00790.html What log files, if any, would be helpful to hunt this down ? -- Toon Moe