Hello,
I'm trying to do a live update of a function without killing or
stopping the program. This is a single threaded application which runs
something similar to the below code. Maximum time is spent in the
while(1) loop.
What i want to do is compile with gcc-4.8 with -pg and -mfentry and
then
-- Forwarded message --
From: Niklaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Maybe g++ bug (in stl_algo.h 0x08048beb in std::__unguarded_partition)
To: gcc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hi,
This crashes on g++ 4.2.3. I think my code is correct. I
On 8/26/08, Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 16:41 +0530, Niklaus wrote:
> > i ran with this file under testsuite/gcc.dj and it aborted with -O2.
> > It is for the optimization bug that i reported few days back. If we
> > don't ha
i ran with this file under testsuite/gcc.dj and it aborted with -O2.
It is for the optimization bug that i reported few days back. If we
don't have this test can someone add ths.
bug_powO2.c
Description: Binary data
Hi ,
are you getting the bug with latest trunk on this code. If you can
tell me , i'll forward it to debian/ubuntu mainters.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Niklaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi,
> -O0 gives me correct output
> but -O1 or -O2 gives me wrong output. i&
22, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Niklaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> When i run with the options g++ prog.c -o prog and run the exectuable
>>> it gives me the correct output
>>> but when i do g++ prog.c -o prog -O2 i get the wrong
Hi,
When i run with the options g++ prog.c -o prog and run the exectuable
it gives me the correct output
but when i do g++ prog.c -o prog -O2 i get the wrong output
The inputs are below
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/junk/prog# g++ bug_gccopt.cpp -O2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/junk/prog# ./a.out
1
1000
Hi,
Is there any way to specify in the code the optimization value like
(-O2 or -O3) instead of on the command line.
I want
#include
...
...
return 0
}
to be compiled with -O2 or -O3 or some better optimization than
standard gcc flags like gcc a.c .I have only 1 file. The problem is i
can't
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 22 June 2006 12:55 pm, Niklaus wrote:
> sorry i didn't understand your question. I build on debian and
> everything works fine for me
> Please be more elaborate where it didn't
> find libc.so.6.
I think works, creating extra library simli
Hi ,
I have compiled binutils successfully with the target i686-unknown-winnt.
But the make for gcc fails. It says target not supported. I think i
can workaround it using i686-unknown-mingw32.
Few questions
1) Is it a known feature or a bug or something that i am doing wrong ?
2) Do we have som
Hi,
I have been trying to build sparc elf executables from i386. I got
gcc,binutils and newlibc and configured them with target=sparc-elf .
Now when i got gcc and binutils working , i wrote a small program
test.c:
int main()
{
return 3;
}
i compiled it using sparc-elf-gcc -c test.c.
./sparc-elf-
On 4/13/06, Dave Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I've been having some odd problems with relocation of 4.x toolchains -
> >> i.e. when a toolchain is configured, built and installed
On 4/13/06, Mark Cuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello - this is definitely a newbie question, so bear with me...
>
> We've been using gcc under Solaris on SPARC hardware for some time now. The
> guy who was here before me set up the previous version (gcc-3.3.3) and now
> I'm trying to get gcc-3
Hi,
Until now i have only build cross toolchains for linux systems.
Usually i build crossgcc in 2 parts, one is before glibc is built ,
the other is after glibc is built.
Is there any way where i can skip the step glibc and build the whole
gcc compiler.
If yes how do i build the whole gcc with
14 matches
Mail list logo
