I think, a %D in a spec creates a list of -L/a/b/c -L/d/e/f. gcc -dumpspecs
shows me that link_libgcc goes to %D but it does not show me what %D produces.
Is there a way to get gcc to dump that out?
Basically what I'm trying to do is find the list of library paths that GCC
tells ld to use whe
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Richard,
>
> While experimenting with a local GCC change I added two new Masks to
> mips.opt and ran into a build failure about too many masks:
>
> ./options.h:4172:2: error: #error too many target masks
>
> It looks like we already have 31 Ma
Richard,
While experimenting with a local GCC change I added two new Masks to
mips.opt and ran into a build failure about too many masks:
./options.h:4172:2: error: #error too many target masks
It looks like we already have 31 Masks in the MIPS mips.opt file and 32
is the limit. It looks like t
there are no .sig files here:
http://www.netgull.com/gcc/releases/gcc-4.8.2/
i assumed that gcc didn't use gpg for releases, and became very
discouraged about the idea of building gcc from source.
then i noticed that there are .sig files at ftp.gnu.org and became very
happy. :)
i've only checke
Hi,
I experienced an issue in our port, which I suspected due to bugs
in ptr_difference_const & split_address_to_core_and_offset. Basically,
ptr_difference_const, called by ivopts pass, tries to evaluate
whether e1 & e2 differ by a const. In this example,
e1 is (addr_expr (mem_ref (ssa_name1, 8))
Hi!
First, pardon the long CC list. You are, in my understanding, the people
who are interested in collaborating on the topics that are being prepared
on gomp-4_0-branch: "LTO" streaming, acceleration device offloading,
OpenMP target, OpenACC, nvptx backend -- and more?
As we've noticed, and he
Chris Lattner skribis:
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 12:14 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> (Hint: read http://vmakarov.fedorapeople.org/spec/ as an example of a
>> better-supported point of view.)
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "
Paulo Matos writes:
>> If we do support vector addresses than I think the right fix is to
>> check VECTOR_MODE_P there.
>
> Well, isn't it the case that a mem with vector mode is always mode
> dependent, in which case adding VECTOR_MODE_P to mode-dependent target
> hook would be enough making the
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Really, attempts to shoot the messenger *won't help*. By ignoring the
> areas where clang *does* have a clear advantage, *right now*, you are
> displaying the exact head-in-the-sand attitude that is most likely to
> concede the high ground to clang.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>> Prathamesh Kulkarni writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Shall it be correct then to replace calls to error() and friends,
>>> taking only format string with no-argument specifiers
>>> to error_
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: 24 January 2014 12:21
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: ICE in trunk due to MEM with address in vector mode
>
> Just in case: the point I was trying to make in the second paragra
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
In the free software movement, we campaign for the freedom of the
users of computing.
> To the extent that clang/LLVM and GCC are fighting, which is not
> really the case, then I think it makes sense for GCC to focus on its
> strengths, not its weaknesses. Objective C is not a strength. I'm
> not sure it makes sense for the GCC project to encourage its limited
> volunteer resource
On 24 January 2014 10:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> brainparty, igstk:
> error: redeclaration of '...' may not have default arguments [-fpermissive]
G++ was fixed to reject this, the code is invalid.
>
> apron, cadabra:
> error: 'ptrdiff_t' does not name a type
These should be qualifying the
Wrong list, please send any follow-ups to gcc-help ONLY, or better yet to
some C++ forum wherever since this has little to do with gcc in
particular.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Jan de Haan wrote:
banging my head, exhausted google, don't know where I make the mistake,
can somebody please tell me
Hi All,
banging my head, exhausted google, don't know where I make the mistake,
can somebody please tell me the errors of my ways?
Project layout:
projectheader.h
#ifndef PROJECTHEADER
#define PROJECTHEADER
#include
#include "class1header"
main.cpp
#include "projectheader"
cl
Paulo Matos writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
>> Sent: 24 January 2014 10:46
>> To: Paulo Matos
>> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: ICE in trunk due to MEM with address in vector mode
>>
>> Paulo Matos writes:
>> > Hello,
>> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Sandiford [mailto:rdsandif...@googlemail.com]
> Sent: 24 January 2014 10:46
> To: Paulo Matos
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: ICE in trunk due to MEM with address in vector mode
>
> Paulo Matos writes:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have found a strange ca
On 24 January 2014 10:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> 0ad, aria2, cupt, dssp, fish, fldigi, iverilog, mednafen, mkvtoolnix, mrs,
> nmap, v4l-utils:
> error: converting to '...' from initializer list would use explicit
> constructor '...'
That one was a GCC problem, fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/view
Paulo Matos writes:
> Hello,
>
> I have found a strange case of an ICE due to a MEM with an address
> with vector mode.
AFAIK that isn't supported. Addresses are assumed to be MODE_INT or
MODE_PARTIAL_INT. Hopefully someone will correct me if this has changed
without me noticing it.
Is this fo
Hi Vladimir,
o Comparing LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks. LLVM has no fortran FE and just
quietly call system GCC. So comparison of LLVM and GCC on Fortran benchmarks
means comparison of system GCC and a given GCC.
a few people are working on LLVM based Fortran compilers. I'm not sure how
Here are some preliminary results of a test rebuild on x86_64-linux-gnu with
trunk 20140118, for all 10755 source packages building architecture dependent
binary packages. Compared to the current gcc-4.8 in Debian unstable, there were
103 new build failures. The gcc-4.9 packages used can be found
> On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:26 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>
> Wrong list, please send any follow-ups to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org only.
>
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Lars Hagström wrote:
>>
>> I'm wondering whether GCC 4.9 will switch to -std=gnu++11 as default?
>
> No. This is asked regularly, google should
Wrong list, please send any follow-ups to gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org only.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014, Lars Hagström wrote:
I'm wondering whether GCC 4.9 will switch to -std=gnu++11 as default?
No. This is asked regularly, google should find the answer easily.
I got an error that implies that "auto" is
Hi,
I'm wondering whether GCC 4.9 will switch to -std=gnu++11 as default?
I did download and build 4.9 from git (through archlinux AUR) to see
if I could answer this myself, but I got slightly contradictory
results:
I got an error that implies that "auto" is not usable, which would
mean that C++
25 matches
Mail list logo
