Re: How to compare two text files? Using sed, cmp, diff, tr?

As Jonathan Wakely wrote: > POSIX diff with the -b option should report the files as equal, I > don't know if that's portable enough to rely on though. I think it is. The Single Unix Specification requires the -b option ("Cause any amount of white space at the end of a line to be treated as a si

Re: AVR port broken on 4.3 20080215 snapshot

As Weddington, Eric wrote: > 1. I've never been able to get svn (Cygwin command line client) to > fully checkout gcc. By contrast, cvs works fine for me for binutils. SVN ought to work fine without Cygwin, on plain Windows. Just FWIW... I've only seen issues with some proxies that don't route al

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage > > of /usr/bin/time (-f option). They even explicitly used > > /usr/bin/time rather than bash's builtin. > No, it uses whichever time program you pass to the configure script > with the -S flag. So

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote: > There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on > *BSD machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash. That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage of /

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As René Rebe wrote: > > "find | sed -i" would take most of the pain out of that if you > > did want to try it... > sed "-i" is an "evil" GNU extension, likewise :-) No, it's similarly available on FreeBSD. That would be fine with me here, as it's only required to tweak the code, but would not

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > >The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had > >taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that > >all the world's a Vax these days... > Patches welcome, I guess. Well, quite an amount of work, alas. There's no central template in

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > What's that test suite that has been mentioned here, and how to > > run it? > http://www.inf.u-szeged.hu/csibe/ Thanks for the pointer. Got it. Alas, that tool is completely unportable, and requires Linux to run. It suffers from bashomania (like using $((I--)) w

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 > The relevant code is in opts.c: > if (optimize_size) > { > /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */ > set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5); > set_param_

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > And now that you've shown that for this test case GCC actually may > have regressed on every target, you've shown that perhaps the global > inlining heuristics should be changed. May well be, for all I know. > Tuning heuristics is always hard and never provably optimal.

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > If the code size increases for AVR, when using -Os, when comparing an > older release to mainline or 4.2 branch, you should report that as a > regression in bugzilla. Thanks. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31528 -- cheers, J"org .-.-. -

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Steven Bosscher wrote: > Maybe you can look at the development of code size of AVR over time, > and show a different trend, but I'd be surprised. Most AVR users use -Os, as small code is fast code in most of the cases on the AVR. The `overall summary' is that GCC continuously decreased its ef

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Eric Weddington wrote: > > > And it seems to have some issues: > > > Comments #4 > > > and #6. > > The only real issue here is a wrong expectation: That a certain > > combination of flags magically does the best thing for every > > target. N