One thing I did in libiberty was to rearrange the targets so that the
ones that took the longest started first. That way, you don't end up
building 99% of the objects then waiting for the one last one to finish.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> Previously (tested with gcc-4.5.3), constructs like this:-
>
> -- foo.h
>
> struct sigpacket
> {
> int __stdcall process () __attribute__ ((regparm (1)));
> };
>
> -- foo.cpp
>
> #include "foo.h"
>
> int __stdcall
> sigpack
On 04/03/2013 10:00 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
This will be true regardless of communication method. There is so little
opportunity for parallelism that anything more than 4-8 local cores is
pretty much wasted. On a 4-core machine, more than 50% of the wall time
is spent on things that will not use
On 04/03/2013 09:44 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Jeff Law :
Using distcc and ccache is trivial; I spread my builds across ~20
processors around the house...
CC=distcc
CXX=distcc g++
CC_FOR_BUILD=distcc
CXX_FOR_BUILD=distcc
It's not quite that simple if you want bootstraps and/or Canadi
On Apr 3, 2013, at 23:44, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> How does that work?
> The binaries have to get the all the machines of the clusters somewhere.
> Does this assume you are using NFS or similar for your build directory?
> Won't the overhead of using that instead of local disk kill most of the
> p
Quoting Jeff Law :
Using distcc and ccache is trivial; I spread my builds across ~20
processors around the house...
CC=distcc
CXX=distcc g++
CC_FOR_BUILD=distcc
CXX_FOR_BUILD=distcc
It's not quite that simple if you want bootstraps and/or Canadian crosses.
STAGE_CC_WRAPPER=distcc
STAGE_CXX
On 04/02/2013 03:25 PM, Senthil Kumar Selvaraj wrote:
+gdwarf
+Common UInteger Var(dwarf_default_version, 4) Negative(gdwarf-)
+Generate debug information in the default DWARF version format
The Negative options need to form a circular chain, so gcoff should have
Negative(gdwarf) and gdwarf sh
Hi list,
Previously (tested with gcc-4.5.3), constructs like this:-
-- foo.h
struct sigpacket
{
int __stdcall process () __attribute__ ((regparm (1)));
};
-- foo.cpp
#include "foo.h"
int __stdcall
sigpacket::process ()
{
return 2;
}
--
... used to work, wi
On 04/03/2013 05:53 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting David Fang :
Apart from parallelism, I wished the stage 2,3 compilations had a hook
for ccache-ing
Even better would be distcc, i.e. distribute the new compilers
around a cluster so you don't need to have all your cores and DIMMS
on the sa
Quoting David Fang :
Apart from parallelism, I wished the stage 2,3 compilations had a hook
for ccache-ing
Even better would be distcc, i.e. distribute the new compilers
around a cluster so you don't need to have all your cores and DIMMS
on the same motherboard to harness hugely massive paralle
Quoting David Fang :
Apart from parallelism, I wished the stage 2,3 compilations had a hook
for ccache-ing
Even better would be distcc, i.e. distribute the new compilers
around a cluster so you don't need to have all your cores and DIMMS
on the same motherboard to harness hugely massive parall
Apart from parallelism, I wished the stage 2,3 compilations had a hook for
ccache-ing to accelerate rebuilds. ccache is capable of detecting changes
in the compiler binary (see CCACHE_COMPILERCHECK in man page) so when
stage 1's result doesn't change, there's potential for cache-hitting in
sta
Am 03.04.2013 17:27, schrieb Simon Baldwin:
> Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds
> its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel
> fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you
> approach this?
>
> I'm looking for id
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> For reference, these docs are:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/User-GC.html#User-GC
Thanks.
> (It seems a shame that one has to write 3 almost-identical functions; I
> wonder if there's a clean way of writing the traversal code only
On Apr 3, 2013, at 11:27, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds
> its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel
> fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you
> approach this?
One of the main pr
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 12:29 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 2013-04-03 12:09 , David Malcolm wrote:
> > I tried grepping for these, but didn't see any. Where are these? Is
> > this in svn trunk, or in a branch?
> vec and edge_def. You need to grep for 'GTY((user))'.
Many thanks; got it now.
[I
Status
==
The GCC 4.6 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.6.4
which I will do on Friday if no serious issue shows up until then.
The branch is frozen now, all changes require release manager approval.
The final release should happen roughly one week after the release
candidate, af
Simon Baldwin writes:
> Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds
> its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel
> fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you
> approach this?
Add support for truly caching configure in
On 3 April 2013 16:48, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> I would like to add the following information about my cilkplus
> branch under "Language-specific" in the SVN.html webpage. Do I send this as a
> patch or is there a specific person I should contact with the information?
>
>
On 2013-04-03 12:09 , David Malcolm wrote:
I tried grepping for these, but didn't see any. Where are these? Is
this in svn trunk, or in a branch?
vec and edge_def. You need to grep for 'GTY((user))'. The
documentation should guide you in what you need to do.
Diego.
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 10:06 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> >
> > Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++
> > conversion!
> > Never trust promises from google ... *sigh*
>
>
> You need to calm down. This childish
Hello Everyone,
I would like to add the following information about my cilkplus branch
under "Language-specific" in the SVN.html webpage. Do I send this as a patch or
is there a specific person I should contact with the information?
Here is the HTML code for what I want to add:
cilk
On 04/03/2013 09:27 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds
its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel
fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you
approach this?
I'm looking for ideas on im
Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds
its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel
fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you
approach this?
I'm looking for ideas on improving the build time of gcc itself. So
far I
On 4/3/2013 8:36 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Joel Sherrill wrote:
The RTEMS Community would like to squeeze pr56771 in. It only got a fix in the
past few days. It is a one line arm-rtems specific path to libcpp configure.
Can I commit that?
Sure, if it got RTEMS maintainer
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> The RTEMS Community would like to squeeze pr56771 in. It only got a fix in
> the past few days. It is a one line arm-rtems specific path to libcpp
> configure.
>
> Can I commit that?
Sure, if it got RTEMS maintainer approval.
Richard.
> --joel
> RTE
The RTEMS Community would like to squeeze pr56771 in. It only got a fix in the
past few days. It is a one line arm-rtems specific path to libcpp configure.
Can I commit that?
--joel
RTEMS
Richard Biener wrote:
Status
==
The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
wh
Status
==
The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
which I will do tomorrow if no serious issue shows up until then.
The branch is frozen now, all changes require release manager approval
until the final release of GCC 4.7.3 which should happen roughly
one week after t
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Foone Turing wrote:
>>
>> This page: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/
>> under "release history" says GCC 4.8 was released on March 22, 2012.
>> This should be 2013, not 2012.
>
>
> Thanks for the report! I have corrected it now.
Same typo at GC
On 04/03/2013 11:02 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Thank you for your answers, seems that the question about the reason
> with default -Bsymbolic is still open.. we are not clairvoyant, but it
> is implemented in GCC so we should understand the reason :)
I suppose so, but we always follow the pl
Hi,
Thank you for your answers, seems that the question about the reason
with default -Bsymbolic is still open.. we are not clairvoyant, but it
is implemented in GCC so we should understand the reason :)
Having that in mind, we have:
1) All shared libraries for Android are built with -Bsymbolic
2
On 03/29/2013 06:55 PM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> When compiling a shared library with "-mandroid -shared" the option
> -Bsymbolic for linker is turned on by default. What was the reason
> behind that default? Isn't using of -Bsymbolic somehow dangerous and
> should be avoided..?
Yes indeed, -
2013/4/3 Maxim Kuvyrkov
>
> Now, it appears the problem is that an application cannot use COPY
> relocation to fetch a symbol out of shared -Bsymbolic library. I don't
> quite understand why this is forbidden by Bionic's linker. I understand why
> COPY relocations shouldn't be applied to the ins
On 30/03/2013, at 7:55 AM, Alexander Ivchenko wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When compiling a shared library with "-mandroid -shared" the option
> -Bsymbolic for linker is turned on by default. What was the reason
> behind that default? Isn't using of -Bsymbolic somehow dangerous and
> should be avoided..? (a
Hi,
We are looking for developers passionate about open-source and toolchain
development. You will be working on a variety of open-source projects,
primarily on GCC, LLVM, glibc, GDB and Binutils.
You should have ...
- Experience with open-source projects and upstream communities;
- Experien
35 matches
Mail list logo
