Hello!
It looks that gmake-4.0 terminates gcc testrun immediately after one
of the jobs fails. Does anybody else see this behavior? Do I need to
update gmake invocation or is "gmake -j 4 -k check" from the toplevel
build directory still OK?
Uros.
Hi all.
I'm trying to build GCC 4.8.3 with ObjC support for ARM Cortex-M4.
I had this working with an earlier version of GCC (I think it was GCC 4.5).
-But now I get build errors.
It seems to me that it's required to add the --enable-libobjc switch (otherwise
I the build stops when it can't find
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> We have been chasing a memory corruption bug, which turned out to be
> caused by very old gcc (4.3.4), which happily turned conditional load into
> a non-conditional one, and that broke correctness (the condition was met
> only if lock was held) and cor
On 08/20/2014 08:22 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> 2. Change the mid-end to call _frame_pointer_required even when
> !flag_omit_frame_pointer.
Um, it does that already. At least as far as I can see from
ira_setup_eliminable_regset and update_eliminables.
It turns out to be much easier to re-enable
Thank you very much for the quick help!!
Let me look into the articles & contact you for further help.
On 8/21/14, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 21 August 2014 00:31, Tomsy Paul wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am designing a new language. I hope I can customize the front end of
>> gcc to suit my lang
On 21 August 2014 00:31, Tomsy Paul wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am designing a new language. I hope I can customize the front end of
> gcc to suit my language. I am comfortable with lex & yacc. I went
> through the source code of gcc but could not locate any lex or yacc
> source file.
>
> I prefer to mo
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20140820 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20140820/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Tomsy Paul wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am designing a new language. I hope I can customize the front end of
> gcc to suit my language. I am comfortable with lex & yacc. I went
> through the source code of gcc but could not locate any lex or yacc
> source file.
>
> I pref
Hello,
I am designing a new language. I hope I can customize the front end of
gcc to suit my language. I am comfortable with lex & yacc. I went
through the source code of gcc but could not locate any lex or yacc
source file.
I prefer to modify the C compiler.
Can you please explain the source fi
> On August 18, 2014 8:46:00 PM CEST, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>
> >> The following seems to fix it. In testing now.
> >
> >Will streaming as non-reference prevent DECL from being merged and
> >tails of BLOCK_VAR chains
> >to be corrupted?
>
> Yes, the decl ends up in the function section then, no
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar
> wrote:
> > Hi Honza,
> >
> > After discussing with Richard Beiner via
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077, it look like it is
> > an existing problem in trunk and is masked due the fact that stage1
> > and stage2 compiler
Hi,
Various targets implement -momit-leaf-frame-pointer to avoid using a frame
pointer in leaf
functions. Currently the GCC mid-end does not provide a way of doing this, so
targets have resorted
to hacks. Typically this involves forcing flag_omit_frame_pointer to be true in
the
_option_override
Dear Manuel and Ilya.
Thank you very much for you advices.
I'll take it into consideration.
Evgeniya
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> The wiki also contains the following: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LoopOptTasks
>
> Probably very outdated, but updating it might b
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Venkataramanan Kumar
wrote:
> Hi Honza,
>
> After discussing with Richard Beiner via
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077, it look like it is
> an existing problem in trunk and is masked due the fact that stage1
> and stage2 compilers in trunk are b
Hi Honza,
After discussing with Richard Beiner via
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62077, it look like it is
an existing problem in trunk and is masked due the fact that stage1
and stage2 compilers in trunk are built with enable-checking and hence
same garbage collection tuning parame
15 matches
Mail list logo