On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:26 PM Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote:
>
> I have another gcc 4.3 question. I'm trying to find where in the code base
> the instrumentation for basic block coverage is done. I've tracked down
> where/how mcount() calls are generated, but I haven't even been able to
> determine
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 22:39 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:57:58PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > At -O0 sure, that is how __builtin_constant_p works.
> > > > The above is intended for optimized compilation, and I think it
> > > > works just fine then.
Hi David,
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 03:57:58PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > At -O0 sure, that is how __builtin_constant_p works.
> > > The above is intended for optimized compilation, and I think it
> > > works just fine then.
> >
> > And it's generally needed with optimization only, to suppre
Hi
In the RTEMS Source Builder, we fetch GMP directly from gmplib.org. It has
been down a few hours.
We have been telling people to either fetch it from ftp.gnu.org or
http://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ for now.
Does anyone have any insight into gmplib.org being down? Is there any
reason
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 21:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Jakub Jelinek:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:54:09PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > > Back in 2007 glibc gained some logic to implement "error" and
> > > "error_at_line" by splitting into zero and non-zero cases, with
> >
I have another gcc 4.3 question. I'm trying to find where in the code base
the instrumentation for basic block coverage is done. I've tracked down
where/how mcount() calls are generated, but I haven't even been able to
determine what function(s) are called to increment a basic block's count.
I'd
* Jakub Jelinek:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:54:09PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
>> Back in 2007 glibc gained some logic to implement "error" and
>> "error_at_line" by splitting into zero and non-zero cases, with the
>> nonzero case calling a "noreturn" function [1].
>>
>> This doesn't s
On Tue, 2024-07-02 at 19:02 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:54:09PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc
> wrote:
> > Back in 2007 glibc gained some logic to implement "error" and
> > "error_at_line" by splitting into zero and non-zero cases, with the
> > nonzero case calling a "no
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 12:54:09PM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> Back in 2007 glibc gained some logic to implement "error" and
> "error_at_line" by splitting into zero and non-zero cases, with the
> nonzero case calling a "noreturn" function [1].
>
> This doesn't seem to work. I tested bac
Back in 2007 glibc gained some logic to implement "error" and
"error_at_line" by splitting into zero and non-zero cases, with the
nonzero case calling a "noreturn" function [1].
This doesn't seem to work. I tested back to 4.8.1 with Compiler
Explorer [2], which seems to be the earliest GCC that su
10 matches
Mail list logo
