On 2017.12.25 at 13:27 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> GNU MPFR 4.0.0 ("dinde aux marrons"), a C library for
> multiple-precision floating-point computations with correct rounding,
> is now available for download from the MPFR web site:
>
> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-4.0.0/
Unfortunately it is in
On 2017.12.15 at 10:21 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 15/12/17 08:42, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > I don't think this is good news at all.
> >
>
> As I pointed out in a reply to Chris, I haven't seeked permission but I
> am pretty sure
On 2017.12.14 at 21:32 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 14 December 2017 at 09:56, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > I got an email suggesting I add some aarch64 workers so I did:
> > 4 workers from CF (gcc113, gcc114, gcc115 and gcc116);
> >
> Great, I thought the CF machines were reserved for developpers
On 2017.10.11 at 08:22 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/17 06:17, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.10.10 at 21:45 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> It's almost 3 weeks since I last posted on GCC Buildbot. Here's an
On 2017.10.10 at 21:45 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It's almost 3 weeks since I last posted on GCC Buildbot. Here's an update:
>
> * 3 x86_64 workers from CF are now installed;
> * There's one scheduler for trunk doing fresh builds for every Daily bump;
> * One scheduler doing incremen
On 2017.10.10 at 12:45 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I would like to update the top level libtool files (libtool.m4,
> ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltversion.m4 and lt~obsolete.m4) used by
> gcc, gdb and binutils. Currently we have version 2.2.7a installed in
> the source trees a
On 2017.09.20 at 18:01 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:01:55PM +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
> > This mail's intention is to gauge the interest of having a buildbot for
> > GCC.
>
> +1. Or no, +100.
>
> > - which machines we can use as workers: we certainly nee
M, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>>> On 09/14/2017 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >>>>> On 2017.09.14 at 11:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikos Chantziaras
> >>>>>> wrote:
> &
On 2017.09.14 at 11:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 12/09/17 16:57, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >>
> >> [...] As a result users are
> >> required to enable several additional optimizations by hand to get good
> >> code.
> >> Other comp
On 2017.08.29 at 15:22 +, Jason Mancini wrote:
> Been doing stability testing on my x86_64 Ryzen cpu using openSUSE's
> (Tumbleweed) "gcc7.1.1 20170802" + compiling Linux kernel source.
> Every so often, the build curiously stalls on a futex between cc1 and
> as. cc1 is on the futex. as is wa
On 2017.08.29 at 12:53 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 12:47 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.08.29 at 12:42 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> >> On 08/29/2017 12:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> (gdb) bt
> >>> #0 0x3fff950e58e4 in
On 2017.08.29 at 12:42 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 08/29/2017 12:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > (gdb) bt
> > #0 0x3fff950e58e4 in syscall () from /lib64/libc.so.6
> > #1 0x3fff94dbbdc4 in __cxxabiv1::__cxa_guard_acquire (g=0x3fff94f26d40
> > > namespace)::__future_category_instance(
On 2017.08.29 at 12:35 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
> > is/was all good when using gcc-6.
> >
> > The SEGFAULT hap
On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it
> is/was all good when using gcc-6.
>
> The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below:
> d_point = *p;
>
> And a fix for it (with gcc-7) has been:
> memcpy(&d_point,
>
On 2017.08.26 at 17:18 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>
> On 26/08/2017 13:10, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.08.26 at 13:04 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I have been trying to build the llvm toolchain with gcc 7.2 using
On 2017.08.26 at 13:04 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have been trying to build the llvm toolchain with gcc 7.2 using the
> Debian packages.
> However, it is currently failing with some undefined reference.
> Seems that some symbols are removed during the build phase (too strong
> op
On 2017.08.26 at 12:40 +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Samstag, 26. August 2017 10:56:16 CEST Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.08.26 at 01:39 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > First let me put into some perspective on -Os usage and some history:
> > > 1
On 2017.08.26 at 01:39 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> First let me put into some perspective on -Os usage and some history:
> 1) -Os is not useful for non-embedded users
> 2) the embedded folks really need the smallest code possible and
> usually will be willing to afford the performance hit
> 3)
On 2017.08.09 at 14:05 +0100, Andrew Roberts wrote:
> I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64.
>
> The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to build on
> aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have finally traced this
> to the sy
On 2017.05.23 at 05:26 -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Jason Merrill writes:
>
> > Yes, the git mirror can lag the SVN repo by a few minutes, that's why
> > you need to 'git svn rebase' to pull directly from SVN before a
> > commit.
> >
> > Jason
>
> Markus just said upthread that:
>
> "git svn
On 2017.05.18 at 13:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 12:55 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.05.18 at 12:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > On 05/18/2017 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > On 05/18/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >
On 2017.05.18 at 12:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 05/18/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > I just tried to push a change and got the error below. git
> > > pull says my tree is up to date. I wonder if it's caused by
> > > my commit conflictin
On 2017.05.03 at 09:30 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Can you someone add 7.1 release to git tags. I guess it's following revision:
> f9105a38249fb57f7778acf3008025f2dcac2b1f
Everyone can add it:
% git tag gcc-7_1_0-release f9105a38249fb57f7778acf3008025f2dcac2b1f
% git push origin gcc-7_1_0-rele
On 2017.04.21 at 09:17 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> I am having problems getting to https://gcc.gnu.org this morning and
> I have also had problems getting to the glibc mail archives though the
> main web page for glibc seem available. Anyone else having problems?
> Of course if this email goes
On 2017.04.10 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 10/04/17 12:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:52:15PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >>> --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072
> >>> 11264.89user 311.88system 24:18.69e
On 2017.04.10 at 12:15 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.04.10 at 10:56 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >
> > What are the numbers with 256M?
>
> Here are the numbers from a 4core/8thread 16GB RAM Skylake machine.
> They look less stellar than the ppc6
On 2017.04.10 at 10:56 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> On 09/04/17 21:06, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.04.09 at 21:10 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2
On 2017.04.09 at 21:10 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it
> > > starts
On 2017.04.09 at 20:23 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it
> > starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago.
> > It curren
On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>
> > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it
> > starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago.
> > It currently ha
The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it
starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago.
It currently has a hard upper limit of 128MB.
This is too low for current machines where 8GB of RAM is normal.
So, it seems to me, a new upper bound of 1GB would be appropr
On 2017.04.01 at 01:00 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> The following patch implements a new function-body-elision
> optimization, which can dramatically improve performance,
> especially under certain benchmarks.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
> * common.opt (felide-function-bodies): New option.
> *
On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> > > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places
On 2017.03.27 at 07:44 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >
> > Well, a missing break is a bug. No?
>
> Every 'case' statement without exception must be accompanied by
> a 'break' state
On 2017.03.27 at 06:26 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > > > On 03/26/20
On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push
> > >> +#pragma GCC diagno
On 2016.12.11 at 09:59 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2016 2:41 AM, "Markus Trippelsdorf"
> wrote:
> > The git server seems to be stuck for over a day.
> > Latest revision on it is r243504.
> > Latest svn revision is r243523.
> Yes, someone branched
The git server seems to be stuck for over a day.
Latest revision on it is r243504.
Latest svn revision is r243523.
--
Markus
On 2016.11.17 at 10:49 +0100, Martin Reinecke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At some point in May 2016 there was a patch to the gcc trunk which
> caused one of my numerical codes to give incorrect results when compiled
> with this gcc version. This may of course be caused by some undefined
> behavior I'm unknow
On 2016.08.01 at 18:16 +0800, lh mouse wrote:
> Hello GCC developers,
>
> Reading the ISO C++ standard,
> > 3.6.4 Termination [basic.start.term]
> > 3 If the completion of the initialization of an object with
> > static storage duration is sequenced before a call to std::atexit
> > (see , 18.5), t
On 2016.07.31 at 10:46 +0200, phi gcc wrote:
> While a simple getenv("TERM") to setup the default of the color
> predicate before going to the sequence of testing CFLAGS, et the
> optargs, would cost almost nothing.
If you want a full explanation of the current behavior please read the
comments in
On 2016.07.31 at 08:08 +0200, phi gcc wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Reposting this here from gcc-help.
>
>
> I got the impression that I got colors in diag output depsite the fact
> that I got no GCC env var setup.
>
> The version I used is
> CX08$ cc --version
> cc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.1) 5.4.0
On 2016.03.18 at 22:05 +0800, Cy Cheng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please look at this c code:
>
> typedef struct _PB {
> void* data; /* required.*/
> int f1_;
> float f2_;
> } PB;
>
> PB** bar(PB** t);
>
> void qux(PB* c) {
> bar(&c); /* c is escaped because of bar */
> c->f1_ =
On 2016.02.27 at 15:10 -0800, Paul E. McKenney via llvm-dev wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:16:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 2016 09:06, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > But we do already have something very similar with signed integer
> > > overflow. If the
On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi
> wrote:
> >
> > > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...]
> >
> > Done [1] [2]. If y'all need a wiki too, just ask.
> >
> > [1] gnu-g...@sourceware.org
> > [2] https
On 2016.02.03 at 01:13 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 22.01.2016 08:27, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >On 22.01.2016 06:09, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> >>In terms of build failures, I reported 520 bugs to Debian. Most of them
> >>were new GCC errors or warnings (some packages use -Werror and many
> >>-
On 2016.01.22 at 11:27 -0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Martin Michlmayr [2016-01-21 21:09]:
> > * 13: test suite failures (segfaults and similar); not clear if the
> > package or if GCC is at fault.
>
> Rene Engelhard pointed me to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69327
> whic
On 2016.01.02 at 03:49 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> seeing as how i have commit access to the gcc tree, could i have
> my bugzilla privs extended as well ? atm i only have normal ones
> which means i only get to edit my own bugs ... can't dupe/update
> other ones people have filed. couldn't see
On 2015.11.23 at 11:11 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> (I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on all re
On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> (I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on all responses.)
>
> This is using GCC 5.2 on Linux x86_64. On a project at work I've found
> that one of our shared libraries refuses to link because of some
> symbol references
On 2015.09.09 at 08:36 +, Michael Mishourovsky wrote:
> At my work I would like to have recent gcc installed but i have no
> sudo rights to update the current gcc (its 4.4.7, and OS is redhat
> linux).
>
> So I checked out latest version of gcc via svn, and following
> guidelines given at
On 2015.08.23 at 11:36 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:26:25PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > One way to do it would be to mine the list archives for not just names
> > but name-date pairs. With a little scripting work that could be processed
> > into a sequence of
On 2015.08.21 at 06:47 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> > wrote:
> >> On 21 August 2015 at 11:44, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>
> Absolutely, a non-fast-forward push is anathem
On 2015.06.06 at 18:52 -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On 06/06/2015 05:47 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> > On 06/06/2015 03:33 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> Aldy,
> >> also at PPC64le LTO bootstrap (at gcc112) dies with:
> >> ^
> >> 0x104ae8f7 check_die
> >> ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:5715
> >
> > H
On 2015.05.27 at 10:14 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> I would like to ask folks what is their opinion about support of
> precompiled headers for future releases of GCC. From my point of view,
> the feature brings some speed-up, but question is if it's worth for?
>
> Last time I hit precompiled heade
On 2015.05.07 at 13:46 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think it's time to switch to C++11 as the default C++ dialect for GCC
> 6. Any thoughts?
Why not C++14?
--
Markus
On 2015.03.21 at 12:11 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >> What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
> >> gcc post-5.0? In p
On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
> gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of
> maintenance releases of 5.0. Will the next maintenance release be 5.1
> or 5.0.1? I assume if it is 5.1, th
On 2015.01.06 at 03:18 -0500, Paul Smith wrote:
> Hi all. It's possible my code is doing something illegal, but it's also
> possible I've found a problem with -O3 optimization in GCC 4.9.2. I've
> built this same code with GCC 4.8.2 -O3 on GNU/Linux and it works fine.
> It also works with GCC 4.9
On 2014.11.21 at 16:16 +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> See: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02259.html
>
> What's not in the log file sent to gcc-results:
See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/327449
--
Markus
On 2014.10.22 at 17:15 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I've been playing with following example:
>
> #include
>
> class Base
> {
> public:
>virtual ~Base() {}
> };
>
> class Derived: public Base
> {
> };
>
> #define N 1000
>
> int main()
> {
>Base **b = (Base **)malloc (sizeo
On 2014.09.19 at 14:55 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.09.19 at 13:15 +0100, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
> > /home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/g++
> > -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
> > -nostdinc++
> > -B/home/rogelio/gc
On 2014.09.19 at 13:15 +0100, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
> /home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/g++
> -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
> -nostdinc++
> -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs
> -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/prev-x86
On 2014.09.09 at 17:35 +0800, Arseny Solokha wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've recently faced an issue I'm afraid I currently unable to debug. When
> building an arbitrary version of Linux kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
> target, it seems gcc prior to 5 produces a good image which boots just fine,
On 2014.07.29 at 19:14 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou
> wrote:
> >> I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to
> >make
> >> them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan.
> >
> >IMHO the cure is worse than the disease.
On 2014.07.29 at 08:07 +, Gengyulei (Gengyl) wrote:
> Hi:
>
> Is there any possibility to parallel the compilation in a single file
> scope? For large application the compilation time is long, although
> we can parallel the process at the level of files, we still try to
> find a way to acc
On 2014.03.16 at 09:20 -0700, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
>
>
> Win7 - 64bit
> gcc (GCC) 4.8.2
> g++ -w -DYYDEBUG=1 -DDEBUG_IO -c -g -MMD -MP -MF
> "build/Debug/Cygwin-Windows/SlipRegister.o.d" -o
> build/Debug/Cygwin-Windows/SlipRegister.o SlipRegister.cpp
>
> There is no generated code for "retv
On 2014.02.11 at 13:02 -0500, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
> On 11 February 2014 12:28, Renato Golin wrote:
> > Now copying Rafael, which can give us some more insight on the LLVM LTO
> > side.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > On 11 February 2014 09:55, Renato Golin wrote:
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> I think this is a
On 2014.02.04 at 12:36 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Ping ?
Patches should be posted to the gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org list.
Please follow up there.
--
Markus
On 2013.12.17 at 07:43 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:45:13AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > Indeed, the compile time is dominated by asan_interceptors.cc:
> > % touch ~/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_interceptors.cc
> > % date; ninja libclang_rt.asan-x8
On 2013.07.02 at 19:53 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:25:28 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > I've attached a gcc_authors file (gathered from various sources), that
> > could be
> > used as a start.
>
> > thomas
On 2013.04.14 at 11:09 +0300, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote:
> Markus Trippelsdorf writes:
>
> > To fix all previous git commits on the mirror one may use the attached
> > git-svn-fix-author script.
>
> Alternatively, you could reformat gcc_authors as a mailmap file
&g
Currently the git mirror mangles all email addresses to something like this:
Author: janus 2013-04-13 12:52:31
Committer: janus 2013-04-13
12:52:31
Parent: 93ff53d3fe85b302fc6099f14066a533af57eeac (* emit-rtl.c (remove_insn):
Do not call df_insn_delete here.)
This looks confusing and ugly.
On 2013.03.26 at 18:28 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am trying to clone a git repository and I am getting the following
> error. Can someone please tell me what this error could be and how I could
> fix this? It worked for me a while back but not now.
>
> I tried the f
On 2013.03.25 at 15:17 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> >> wrote:
> >>
On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote:
> >> >
> &g
On 2013.03.25 at 06:07 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Markus Trippelsdorf writes:
> >
> > So it appears, contrary to the advice given above, that it is not useful
> > to build gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option at the moment.
>
> Did you build firefox/kernel with debug info on
On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote:
> >
> > is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option?
>
> If you want a (slightly) faster compiler then yes.
> Simply add "--with-b
On 2013.03.16 at 14:51 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Quality Data
> >
> >
> > Priority # Change from Last Report
> > --- ---
> > P11 + 1
> > P2
On 2012.11.17 at 09:37 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a bad memory access in LTO:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795
>
> Should we add an option to bootstrap GCC with asan?
I think that's a good idea, but please note that gcc's implementation
doesn't catch this part
Is there any interest in updating the in-tree libtool to something
newer? This update would allow to use a -fno-fat-lto-objects
lto-bootstrap target, that should speed up the (lto) build time.
If there is interest, when would be the best date for such an update?
Thanks.
--
Markus
On 2012.02.01 at 16:19 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> we've spotted the following mismatch between what kernel folks expect
> from a compiler and what GCC really does, resulting in memory corruption on
> some architectures. Consider the following structure:
> struct x {
> long a;
> unsigned int
On 2012.01.23 at 16:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Crossbuilding gcc-4.6.2 for rtems targets succeeds on Fedora 15, 16,
> openSUSE-11.4 and 12.1, but fails with this error on Fedora rawhide
> (aka. Fedora 17):
>
> ...
> # gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions
>
On 2011.10.25 at 06:39 +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote:
> Is it preferred to sync libtool.m4 completely? Or do we want to shift
> this update for a later time? I'm aware of the closing stage one.
An libtool update is also needed for bootstrap-lto with slim lto object
files. So a complete sync with up
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
I'm not sure that the gain is worth the pain in this case.
--
Markus
On 2011.07.17 at 18:54 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2011.07.17 at 18:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> > >> I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower
> > >> (
On 2011.07.17 at 18:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower
> >> (comparing C bootstrap with C++ in stag1 languages with C++ bootstrap,
> >> not sure if that included bootstrapp
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Mark Cuss wrote:
> Hi Eric
>
> sparc-sun-solaris2.9-objdump -f returns the following:
> libc.so:
> start address 0x
> ...
Congratulations, this must be the longest top-post ever.
--
Markus
88 matches
Mail list logo
