On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> Where on earth does this gcc_tg.o file come from? I'm completely lost
>> here -- I can't find any log that indicates it getting built, or any
>> refe
I'm trying to reproduce a test failure outside the Dejagnu testsuite,
and I noticed that the file I'm trying to recompile is linked with a
gcc_tg.o file. Based on the missing-symbol errors I get when I don't
include it, it seems to provide things like __wrap_main and so forth.
Where on earth does
At 06:33 AM 7/15/2007, Robert Dewar wrote:
Richard Kenner wrote:
Actually the whole notion of violating a license is a confused one. The
violation is of the copyright, the license merely gives some cases in
which copying is allowed. If you copy outside the license you have not
"violated" the li
Robert Dewar wrote:
One could of course just take a blanket view that everything
on the site is, as of a certain moment, licensed under GPLv3
(note you don't have to change file headers to achieve this,
the file headers have no particular legal significance in
any case).
I'm going to pull a Wik
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Speaking as an individual developer who nonetheless needs to follow
his company's policies on licensing, I need it to be *absolutely
clear* whether a piece of software can be used under GPLv2 or not.
If there's a situation where 'silent' license upgrades can occur,
where
DJ Delorie wrote:
I read these as "4.2.1 is the last 4.2 release". Pulling a 4.3.3 from
that branch is, IMHO, stupid and confusing. If 4.2.1 is the last 4.2
release, the 4.2 branch is DEAD (svn topology notwithstanding). The
next release cannot be 4.3.3, that makes no sense. The next release
Mark Mitchell wrote:
David Edelsohn wrote:
Let me try to stop some confusion and accusations right here. RMS
*did not* request or specify GCC 4.3.3 following GCC 4.2.2. That was a
proposal from a member of the GCC SC. The numbering of the first GPLv3
release was not a requirement from
Michael Eager wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I believe that we should make a clear statement with that release that
any future backport from a later gcc release requires relicensing the
changed files to be GPLv3 or later. I believe this is consistent with
the two different licensing requirement
Diego Novillo wrote:
On 7/12/07 11:43 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
My personal preference would be to acknowledge that for our users
there is no significant difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3.
I agree with this. I think renaming 4.2.2 to 4.3.3 will result in
lots of unnecessary confusion.
Like
Diego Novillo wrote:
On 7/6/07 1:14 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
One other thing. Can you post the contents of
perf/sbox/gcc/local.ppc64/src/libgfortran/intrinsics/selected_int_kind.f90
This is file is autogenerated. If it's mangled you'll get the
failure.
Attached. The failure still exists wit
Dave Korn wrote:
On 23 June 2007 22:53, Brooks Moses wrote:
Indeed. It would be interesting to confirm whether or not a copy of gcc
bootstrapped with a non-gcc compiler matched byte-for-byte with a copy
of gcc bootstrapped from gcc. Not so much to look for intentional
things like this, but to
Robert Dewar wrote:
OK, interesting, thanks for info, I had always thought that this
was purely conceptual.
One thing (which Erik didn't mention) that I noticed in the articles is
that Ken said that in his implementation he also hacked the disassembler
to cover up the evidence.
Of course t
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Both our goals are legitimate. But that's not the point. The point is
what -ffast-math semantically means (the simplistic list of suboptions
activated by it is of couse unsufficiente because it doesn't explain how
to behave in face of new options, like -mrecip). My proposal
michael.a wrote:
It would be interesting for someone to try to make a practical argument that
is anything but a nest of technicalities, as to why ctors and unions
shouldn't be mixable.
The Fortran language specification allows essentially this, although the
terms are initializers and equivalen
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I wish to applogize to the Fortran maintainers if I have sturred up a
hornet's nest. I had been told that the Fortran maintainers followed
the rule, as a convention among themselves, that individuals did not
approve their own non trivial patches. When the three of us becam
At 09:40 PM 6/14/2007, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:48:22PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I have no objection to this as a custom for GFortran, certainly -- I
> think it's a very good idea, and as a custom I very much support it.
> However, there have historically b
(Because this concerns policy rather than code, I've cc'ed it to the
main gcc list rather than the patches list.)
FX Coudert wrote:
I noticed in MAINTAINERS that there is a new category of "Non-
Autopoiesis Maintainers" (I certainly missed the original
announcement), for maintainers who canno
Lothar Werzinger wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
Sounds like it. I suggest that you file a bug report, with a complete
testcase, so that it can be fixed.
AFAIK the proposed way to file a bug is to preprocess the file that fails
and to attach the preprocessed file to the bug.
That's the usual way in
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Brooks Moses wrote:
Several members of the GFortran team (primarily Chris Rickett and Steve
Kargl) have been working on a project to add the BIND(C) functionality
from the Fortran 2003 standard. This provides for a standard means of
linking Fortran code with code that uses
Brooks Moses wrote (on the Fortran BIND(C) project):
I don't believe this project has been documented very well (if at all)
on the standard Wiki page for Stage-1 projects, but I haven't looked at
it in a while. I am also not entirely certain whether this qualifies as
a Stage 1 or
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I am aware of three remaining projects which are or might be appropriate
for Stage 1:
[...]
In the interests of moving forwards, I therefore plan to close this
exceptionally long Stage 1 as of next Friday, June 15th. The projects
named above may be merged, even though we w
Dave Korn wrote:
On 25 May 2007 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
It's no different than any other library used by any other program.
I wouldn't object to configure support to request static gmp/mpfr for
developer convenience, but GCC is a perfectly normal dynamically
linked program and should behave
Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. Add a field to bugzilla for the SVN revision at which a particular
regression was introduced. Display that in bugzilla as a link to the
online SVN history browser so that clicking on a link takes us from the
PR straight to the checkin. This field value ought to be the mo
Wei Chen wrote:
i think http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html have a error.
"Using the SVN repository
Assuming you have version 1.0.0 and higher of Subversion installed,
you can check out the GCC sources using the following command:
svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc "
the right is
Mike Stump wrote:
On May 21, 2007, at 2:43 PM, AaronCloyd wrote:
I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile.
Wrong list... gcc-help is closer that what you want...
Is it? Changing the internals of what GCC puts into .s files seems a
topic that's more appropriate here, I would think.
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
(the next proposal is likely to cause some dissent)
What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
a few months. From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html,
it looks like it would already be q
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 5/9/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In ipa-type-escape.c we have:
/* Return either TYPE if this is first time TYPE has been seen an
compatible TYPE that has already been processed. */
I'd fix it, if I knew I knew what it meant. either, an and that a
Philippe Schaffnit wrote:
Sorry about the (possibly off) question: would this apply also to
GMP/MPFR, if not, wouldn't it make sense?
It wouldn't make sense -- GMP and MPFR are never linked into the
compiled output at all. (They're only used within the compiler itself,
for processing constan
J.C. Pizarro wrote:
In the attachment there is a quick&dirty alpha patch that i don't known
why the gcc compiler says "gcc: unrecognized option '-html'". ???
I don't known where to modify the gcc code to add an option.
The XHTML format to fputs is a little bad.
There are examples to test too.
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 4/15/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I would consider asking the SC for permission to institute a
rule that would prevent contributors responsible for P1 bugs (in the
only possible bright-line sense: that the bug appeared as a result of
their patch)
Dave Korn wrote:
On 12 April 2007 22:22, FX Coudert wrote:
Note2: I also omitted a couple of gfortran.dg/secnds.f failures; this
testcase should be reworked
I was about to report that myself! Both secnds.f /and/ secnds-1.f have some
kind of race condition or indeterminacy.
It's an indeter
FX Coudert wrote:
wrt to the Subject of the mail, I'm not sure "Call to arms" means
what I thought it meant, after all... I really wanted it to sound
like "call for help" or "call for more arms". Sorry if there was any
confusion in the tone.
The literal meaning of "call to arms" is a call
I was looking through how to convert real numbers between various
representations for the Fortran TRANSFER patch that I'm working on, and
came across something that I'm curious about.
We've currently got two different bits of code for converting an MPFR
real number to a REAL_VALUE_TYPE. One o
atch
region, and of course the two lines of context in the top of the patch
-- and so I'm now proposing to remove it.
-------
2007-03-23 Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* error.c (show_l
Robert Dewar wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The new option -fstrict-overflow tells gcc that it can assume the
strict signed overflow semantics prescribed by the language standard.
This option is enabled by default at -O2 and higher. Using
-fno-strict-overflow will tell gcc that it can not assum
(crossposting to fortran@)
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Now that the gcc 4.2 release is getting closer, I am resending this
e-mail from Martin Michlmayr. I've removed options which I believe
are sufficiently internal to not require mention in the changes file,
and I've removed options which are now
Annapoorna R wrote:
steps i followed:
1. downloaded GCJ4.1.2 core and java tar from GNU site. and extracted it
to GCC4.1
after extracting folder GCC-4.1.2 is created(automatically while
extracting).
the frontend part (java tar) was extraced to /gcc-4.1.2/libjava.
Did ./configure from libj
Tarmo Pikaro wrote:
If you consider different languages - c, c++, java - they are not much different
- syntax somehow vary, but you can basically create the same application using
different languages. "Generic" tries to generalize structures available in all
languages
into common form. I think c
Karthikeyan M wrote:
Oh ! So the releases on http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html are for
those who just want to use gcc and not hack it ?
Is the latest release not done from the top of the trunk ?
No; the top of the trunk is far too unstable for releasing. Release
branches are split off of tru
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On 3/20/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think it's fair for front ends to pay for their
largesse. There are also relatively cheap changes in the C++ front end
to salvage a few codes, and postpone the day of reckoning.
I think that day of reckoning will c
Kai Ruottu wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
How can I get the build scripts to use the precompiled gcc throughout
the build process ?
Short answer is you can't. The newly build gcc is always used to build the
target libraries.
Nice statement but what does this really mean?
Does this for ins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I sincerely apologize for the spammish nature of this e-mail - I
don't mean to abuse this list. I am trying to collect responses
from as many open source developers and users as possible and a
mailing list like can be the only way to reach many developers.
FWIW, one op
Mark Mitchell wrote:
However, I do think that it's important to eliminate some of the 139
open P2 and P1 regressions [2], especially those P1 regressions which
did not appear in GCC 4.1.x.
133, not 139. Your search url returns six P3 bugs, one of which (29441)
is not even a regression.
Does
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps a middle ground between what we have now, and "trust but verify",
would be to have a "without objection" rule. I.e. certain people are
authorized to post patches and if no one objects within say two weeks,
then they could then check it in. I think that would help
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
a patch. What is it then?
I remembered a week as well, but http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html sa
Andrew Pinski wrote:
100 good patches != good knowledge in one area.
Also I think I already submitted 100 good patches but every once in a
while I submit a bad one though I think it is good to begin with.
To tangent off this in a rather different direction: One of the things
that I've noticed
Brian Dessent wrote:
Brooks Moses wrote:
In short, from what I could tell from a quick scan of that PR, the
problem is that you've got LD_LIBRARY_PATH set in such a way that it's
not including the GMP header files.
If you're using the standard Cygwin-package installation of GMP,
Brooks Moses wrote:
However, this seems to be hardcoding something that texinfo has
perfectly good macros for, and it's also missing the standard GCC-manual
subtitle; the usual form is:
--
@titlepage
@title Installing GCC
@subtitle fo
Christian Joensson wrote:
Í just tried to build gcc-4.1.2 for cygwin... but failed. My old way
of test building does not seem to work anymore for me.
[...]
grep '^#' < kinds.h > kinds.inc
/bin/sh: kinds.h: No such file or directory
[...]
Any ideas of what might be going wrong?
A quick bit o
The install.texi manual has the following bit of code for the title page:
--
@titlepage
@sp 10
@comment The title is printed in a large font.
@center @titlefont{Installing GCC}
--
However, thi
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've heard various comments about whether or not it's worth doing a 4.2
release at all. For example:
[...]
So, my feeling is that the best course of action is to set a relatively
low threshold for GCC 4.2.0 and target 4.2.0 RC1 soon: say, March 10th.
Then, we'll have
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Am I correct in guessing that the "missing" lines in Makefile.def are
not currently needed? Or are they merely present in the GCC fixincludes
but missing in the fixincludes directories in some other trees that
share the top-level build files?
Yes, a patch that removes th
Why is it that Makefile.def includes:
// "missing" indicates that that module doesn't supply
// that recursive target in its Makefile.
[...]
host_modules= { module= fixincludes;
missing= info;
missing= dvi;
missing= pdf;
missing=
Andrew Pinski wrote:
In http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html appears
"Support for SSSE3 built-in functions and code generation are available
via |-mssse3|."
Is it SSE3 (i686 SIMD) or SSSE3 (strange, unknown)?
Is it -mssse3 or -msse3?
-mssse3 is S-SSE3 which was added for code dual 2.
Yes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With following code:
[CODE]
struct B {
int c;
int d;
};
#define X(a, b, c) \
do\
{\
if (a)\
printf("%d, %d\n", b.c, c);\
else\
printf("%d\n", c);\
}while(0);
[/CODE]
Why
int d = 24;
X(1, b,
icrashedtheinternet wrote:
I guess I could have worded my email a bit better. Of course I don't
assume that the GCC developers are ignoring standards. Nor do I think
any of us are unaware of GCC's ability to support a standard and have
extensions to it that go beyond the standard. So I simply
Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Also, I referred to some tutorials and articles in the net about
writing gcc front-end. And here are they:
1. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GNU_C_Compiler_Internals/Print_version
2. http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/GCC-Frontend-HOWTO.html (old)
3. http://www.linuxjourna
I've been trying to track down an build failure that I was pretty sure
came about from some patches I've been trying to merge, but I've now
reduced things to a bare unmodified tree and it's still failing. I
could have sworn that it wasn't doing that until I started adding
things, though, so I'
Paul Schlie wrote:
Just as:
volatile int* port = (int*)PORT_ADDRESS;
int input = *port; supposedly invoking an undefined behavior.
is required to be well specified, effectively reading through a pointer
an un-initialized object's value, and then assigning that unspecified value
to the variab
Paul Schlie wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote
Paul Schlie wrote:
- However x ^= x :: 0 for example is well defined because absent any
intervening assignments, all reference to x must semantically yield the
same value, regardless of what that value may be.
Nope, there is no such requirement in the sta
Andreas Bogk wrote:
Making a call here before knowing this is not sensible. In fact, I'm
tempted to argue that it is generally a bad idea to do optimizations
that lead to the same expression being evaluated to different results
without making the user explicitly request them.
Anything other th
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:52, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
It could be a starting point to help avoiding quite a lot of
overhead needed to iterate over command line options for example.
Odd. You think that time
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
A trivial by nature change like the
top level build of libgcc took actually years to come by.
I'm not sure how much that's inherently evidence that it was
inappropriately difficult to do, though.
For example, the quite trivial change of having "make pdf" support for
cr
Richard Stallman wrote:
If not, I think one ought to be implemented. I have a suggestion for
what it could look like:
#define FIXNUM_OVERFLOW_P(i) \
((EMACS_INT)(int)(i) > MOST_POSITIVE_FIXNUM \
|| (EMACS_INT)(int)(i) < MOST_NEGATIVE_FIXNUM)
The casts to int could be interpreted as meanin
Mike Stump wrote:
Yeah, spending large amounts of time in stage2 and 3 does have
disadvantages. I'd rather have people that have regressions spend a
year at a time in stage2-3... :-( Maybe we should have trunk be
stage1, and then snap over to a stage2 branch when the stage1
compiler is
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 06:54 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[quoting Paul Eggert]
Surely the GCC guys care about LIA-1. After all, gcc has an
-ftrapv option to enable reliable signal generation on signed
overflow. But I'd rather not go the -ftrapv route, since that
will cau
Paul Thomas wrote:
Brooks,
Is this the expected/desired behavior for "dg-do compile"?
I had always thought so :-)
and Steve Kargl wrote in the "Fix PR 30235" thread on fortran@:
It's my understanding the "dg-do compile" in the gfortran
testsuite should only run once. It is normally used to
I just noticed what looks like an anomaly in the gfortran testsuite.
All of the tests that have "dg-do compile" headers are only being
compiled once, with an empty "-O" option, rather than iterating over the
usual list of -O1, -O2, -O3, etc.
(This is, I note, also what's happening with advance
Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Dec 4, 2006, at 6:08 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The question
is whether a correctly rounded "exact" cbrt differs from the pow
replacement by more than 1ulp - it looks like this is not the case.
If that is the question, I'm afraid your answer is not accurate. In
th
Ed S. Peschko wrote:
And in any case, why should it be off-topic? I would think that
the possibility of your project being divided in two would be of
great concern to you guys, and that you'd have every single motivation to
convey any sort of apprehension that you might have about such a split
H. J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:17:49AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:43:20AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
No failure should be expected. It is a bug and a regression and
should be fixed, with help of users who have access to SPEC CPU2000.
It was a pilo
David Edelsohn wrote:
Steve Kargl writes:
Steve> I have not seen this failure, but that may be expected
Steve> since SPEC CPU 2000 isn't freely available.
No failure should be expected. It is a bug and a regression and
should be fixed, with help of users who have access to SPEC CPU2000
Jack Howarth wrote:
Does anyone know how the changes for gcc to require gmp/mpfr will effect the
multilib builds? In the past, gmp/mpfr in gfortran appeared to only be linked
into
the compiler itself so that a 32-bit/64-bit multilib build on Darwin PPC only
required gmp/mpfr for 32-bit to be
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 November 2006 21:18, Brooks Moses wrote:
But that's already not possible -- that's essentially how I got into
this problem in the first place. If one tries to define both of those,
the declaration of the enumeration-type holding the option flags breaks,
so yo
Dave Korn wrote:
On 10 November 2006 20:06, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Dave Korn wrote:
It may seem a bit radical, but is there any reason not to modify the
option-parsing machinery so that either '-' or '=' are treated
interchangeably for /all/ options with joined arguments? That is,
whichever is
The Fortran front end currently has a lang.opt entry of the following form:
ffixed-line-length-
Fortran RejectNegative Joined UInteger
I would like to add to this the following option which differs in the
last character, but should be treated identically:
ffixed-line-length=
Fortran R
There's something weird going on with Fortran's -ffixed-line-length
options, and in how the lang.opt files get processed to produce the
--help results from cc1 (and cc1plus, f951, etc.).
Specifically, the fortran/lang.opt file contains the following lines:
-
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The problem with trying to solve this problem on a per pass basis rather
than coming up with an integrate solution is that we are completely
leaving the user out of the thought process.
There are some uses who have big machines or a lot of time on their
hands and want the d
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The problem
appears to be that it's not looking in the right
I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The problem
appears to be that it's not looking in the right places for libgmp.so.3
when it calls ./gcc/xgcc at the end of the stage.
-
The box, for what it's
Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
I am working with a GCC Cross compiler version 4.1.1.
This small bit of code worked fine with all optimization except Os.
unsigned int n = 30;
void x ()
{
unsigned int h;
h = n <= 30; // Line 1
if (h)
p = 1;
else
p = 0;
}
[...]
3. What are the probabl
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Hi Murali,
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Murali Vemulapati wrote:
what is the release number for gcc trunk (mainline)? currently there
are two branches 4.2.0 and 4.3.0 which are accepting patches.
we tried to provide this information on our main web page at
http://gcc.gnu.org. If
roval
from! :)
There are, of course, quite a lot of changelog entries; I've given them
headers by directory to indicate which changelog they go in.
Thanks!
- Brooks
Changelog entries:
--(top level)
2006-10-10 Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTEC
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote:
I would like to propose that a "make pdf" target be added to the GCC general
makefile.
I agree. If you look at the current GNU Coding Standards you'll see a
series of targets {,install-}{html,dvi,pdf,ps}
I would like to propose that a "make pdf" target be added to the GCC
general makefile.
I did a search to see if there was any previous discussion on this, and
what I found were a few messages from 1999 and 2001 that seemed to imply
that it might be a good idea, and even included a partial patc
Brooks Moses wrote:
As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
Oh, bother. I just noticed that I f
As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
I can't seem to find any examples of ChangeLog entries for wwwdocs
entries; is one needed?
- B
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 05:10:19PM -0500, Justin Thomas wrote:
I am a big fan of the GNU project and would really like to use
gfortran for Fortran development work on my 64-bit AMD Opteron machine
running Red Hat Linux. I cannot find any documentation on your
website at all,
FX Coudert wrote:
[attribution lost]
> > You'll find that globally changing the rounding mode will screw up
> > libm functions. Which is pretty much going to make this useless.
>
> OK. I didn't know that, and it's going to be annoying. So, the GNU libm
> doesn't enable us to call mathematical fun
89 matches
Mail list logo
