On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 20:32 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> "Steve Ellcey " writes:
> > I have noticed that gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-7.c and
> > gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-8.c fail when running the GCC
> > testsuite with -msoft-float.
>
> Which configuration and test options are you using and w
"Steve Ellcey " writes:
> I have noticed that gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-7.c and
> gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-8.c fail when running the GCC
> testsuite with -msoft-float.
Which configuration and test options are you using and what failure do
you see? It works for me with mipsisa64-elf, so it sound
Hello,
We wish to host new mirror sites for GCC. Here are the mirrors
that are set up for GCC:
+ Mirrors-usa:
http://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc/
ftp://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc/
rsync://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/mirrors/gcc/
+ Mirrors-ru:
http://mirrors-ru.go-parts.com/g
Richard,
I have noticed that gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-7.c and
gcc.target/mips/fpr-moves-8.c fail when running the GCC
testsuite with -msoft-float. I think it is because
of this code in mips.exp:
if { [mips_using_mips16_p options]
&& ![mips_same_option_p $abi "-mabi=32"]
On 07/30/2013 02:59 PM, hemant wrote:
I have written a std code for ARM 32-bit platform using math.h library and
float=powf(float,float) function. When I give input to my system as 100 ^
4.4 it gives me answer as 630957632. (as float) whereas calculator in
WindowsXP gives answer as 630957344
On 30/07/13 12:59, hemant wrote:
I have written a std code for ARM 32-bit platform using math.h library and
float=powf(float,float) function. When I give input to my system as 100 ^
4.4 it gives me answer as 630957632. (as float) whereas calculator in
WindowsXP gives answer as 630957344.480
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:35:12AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> On 07/30/2013 08:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> As far as newbies are concerned, I think that grasping that .c files
> are C++ files is one of the easy things to learn about GCC compared to
> other necessary knowledge (which is something we should work on).
One more oddities compared to
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
>> I think it is a good idea now (except perhaps for the very few source files
>> which could still be compiled by a plain C, not C++, compiler; maybe we
>> don't have anymore them...).
>
>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
>> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
>> where there is going to be none.
>
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
>>> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply so
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 08:42:16AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would like to suggest that new implementation files have
>> the '.cc' extension, unless they are meant to be processed
>> with a C compiler. (I am not proposing
Hi,
I thought about optimizing memcpy and have an idea to transform patterns
without having to deal with aliasing. When we are not sure about
aliasing we can still replace loop with call of this function (provided
that we know that n is large):
static int
__memcpy_loop(char *to,char *from, size_t
On 07/30/2013 01:52 PM, David Starner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> "We" is the GCC community. "We" really want multilibs to be built so
>> they get tested as much as possible. It's in the best interest of
>> all GCC users that this happens.
>
> "We" really w
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 08:25:14AM -1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 05:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > "H.J. Lu" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Here is a patch to extend x86-64 psABI to support AVX-512:
> >
> > Afaik avx 512 doubles the amount of xmm registers. Can we get them cal
> If --enable-multilib or --disable-multilib are passed then things
> are performed as today, more or less. If these flags are not
> explicitly given then gcc has to do something different
This sounds reasonable. We could have a specific check, with the following
cumulative conditions (to make i
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM, David Starner wrote:
>> We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejected in favor of a
>> hypothetical patch, and years down the road, the program still has the
>> problem. The people who blocked the quic
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> "We" is the GCC community. "We" really want multilibs to be built so
> they get tested as much as possible. It's in the best interest of
> all GCC users that this happens.
"We" really want Ada to be built so that it gets tested as much as
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 08:35:12AM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 07/30/2013 08:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wr
On 07/30/2013 08:27 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
s
> Various Ada runtime library files are also .c under gcc/ada - in general,
> I'm not sure which .c files there are used as C, C++ or both, and which
> are used for host, target or both; that would require careful
> investigation for any renaming.
The C files directly under ada/ cannot be renamed
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:51:35AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> > I think it is a good idea now (except perhaps for the very few source files
> > which could still be compiled by a plain C, not C++, compiler; maybe we
> > don't have anymore
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
> >> suffix and some with .cc suffi
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
> >> suffix and some with .cc suffix wou
I have written a std code for ARM 32-bit platform using math.h library and
float=powf(float,float) function. When I give input to my system as 100 ^
4.4 it gives me answer as 630957632. (as float) whereas calculator in
WindowsXP gives answer as 630957344.48019324943436013662234.
I just want
On Tue, 30 Jul 2013, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I think it is a good idea now (except perhaps for the very few source files
> which could still be compiled by a plain C, not C++, compiler; maybe we
> don't have anymore them...).
gcov-io.c is C code used for both host and target (one of the re
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 07:13:22AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
> >> suffix and some with .cc suffix wou
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
>> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
>> where there is going to be none.
>
On 07/30/2013 07:50 AM, David Starner wrote:
Sorry about the blank message; I accidentally hit the wrong button.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important
to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch."
We've
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
> where there is going to be none.
Yeah -- this sort of discrepancy I don't like either. In gcc
On 07/30/2013 05:50 AM, David Starner wrote:
> Sorry about the blank message; I accidentally hit the wrong button.
>
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important
>> to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch
31 matches
Mail list logo
