R Hill wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
On 7/14/05, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As subject says - on x86_64 it takes a whopping 30 minutes to
compile said with -fprofile-generate!
It's caused by -frename-registers enabled by -funroll-loops. Compiling
with -O2 -fno-u
Richard Guenther wrote:
On 7/14/05, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As subject says - on x86_64 it takes a whopping 30 minutes to
compile said with -fprofile-generate!
It's caused by -frename-registers enabled by -funroll-loops. Compiling
with -O2 -fno-unroll-loops -fprofile-gener
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
As far as reviewing/applying/approving patches for wwwdocs is concerned,
and implementing suggestions sent to the GCC lists, I'm committed to do
that, and do so within one "online day" if possible in any way.
I'd like to applaud you for that effort.
However, I just don't
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
[snip]
If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion
then feel free to not participate. If you have objections then voice
them appropriately or risk them being dismissed as bullshit baiting.
--de.
Daniel Kegel wrote:
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Agreed. I've had mixed reports from folks over in the Gentoo universe
about glibc; perhaps this page might be of interest:
http://process-of-elimination.net/?q=gentoo_and_gcc_4_0_0_tips_and_tricks
Hey Scott.
That page is pretty outdated. AFAIK we
Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
With 4.0.0, compiling a complete GNU/Linux distribution reveals bugs
in GCC, but even more bugs in C++ software that is not valid C++.
Assuming we can get the distros to fix the latter set of problems...
I don't have a good solution for this problem, ot
René Rebe wrote:
I think this massive -Os regressions on C++ code as experienced in tramp3d and
botan should be investigated. However I have not looked for filled PRs or
more recnt snapshots of 4.0 so far ...
Oh good, so it's not just me. ;)
I opened PR21314 a while back but ended up chickeni
Russ Allbery wrote:
It's not the request for the e-mail address. It's that it's phrased as a
login screen and a button to create an account. I know that I definitely
pause and consider before I create an account at a web site. There are
many on-line newspapers that I refuse to read articles f
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 16:37 +1200, Ross Smith wrote:
On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Is perhaps some kind of anonymous account needed (as in Slashdot's
case) to encourage these users to fill bugreports?
I think this is probably the real showstopper. I'll
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 27 May 2005, R Hill wrote:
a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations.
Thanks, I just installed your patch.
Gerald
Just curious, are you guys interested in these types of brain dead janitorial
patches? I've noticed a few other
Joe Buck wrote:
It also helps assure that the bug filer is a real person. If Bugzilla
provided an anonymous way to file Bugzilla reports, we'd probably have
spammers filling the bug database with ads for penis enlargement.
RESOLVED: WORKSFORME
--de.
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The list of changes is available at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.3/changes.html
a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations.
--- changes.html.orig 2005-05-27 18:56:02.0 -0600
+++ changes.html2005-05-27 18:56:36.000
Ola Rönnerup wrote:
Hi,
How do I enable the use of the __mt_alloc-allocator instead of the default one?
this patch applies to gcc-4 but i think it will give you an idea where
to look.
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/gcc/gcc4-libstdc%2B%2B-mt-alloc.patch
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Some of those problem may also exist in GCC-4.0 because this
version (and the 4.1 I tested) gives me an increase of 60% of the
code size compared to 3.4.3.
This is a serious regression which should be submitted in Bugzilla. Would
you
14 matches
Mail list logo
