Hello
We are trying to port GLIBC 2.2.5 on the ABACUS (processor similar to
SPARC) platform. We have done much of the porting work.
At this stage we are trying to get the 'ld-2.2.5.so' working. We are
facing problems in this. We are trying to run this on again on our own
Linux kernel for ABACUS p
Joe Buck wrote:-
> > I think it's desirable for front-ends to be able to fold floating
> > point constant expressions too, no? It can be handy for diagnostics
> > such as detecting overflow or unreachable code based on conditionals
> > whose expression is a floating one, albeit constant.
>
> The
On 2005-02-16 08:13:24 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I tried this evening to install gmp-4.1.4 and mpfr-2.1.0 on my Solaris
> > machines and I failed on the first try. (I think the default install
> > for gmp on my machines is a 64-bit version, but the default for mpfr
> > and gcc is 32-bit, so
Hi!
While trying to implement folding of &a +- cst to &a[c] I came
along the C frontend, which for
int a[4];
int *p = &a[-1];
produces
p = &a + (int *)-4;
so my new transformation gets
constant invariant
4294967292>
as (int *)-4.
But of course trying to fold the index back into an
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> While trying to implement folding of &a +- cst to &a[c] I came
> along the C frontend, which for
>
> int a[4];
> int *p = &a[-1];
>
> produces
>
> p = &a + (int *)-4;
Would guess it should be:
p = &a - (int *)4;
or even:
p = &a + - (int *)4;
Either yiel
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Paul Schlie wrote:
> > Richard Guenther wrote:
> > While trying to implement folding of &a +- cst to &a[c] I came
> > along the C frontend, which for
> >
> > int a[4];
> > int *p = &a[-1];
> >
> > produces
> >
> > p = &a + (int *)-4;
>
> Would guess it should be:
>
>
On 11 Feb 2005, Sam Lauber mused:
> As for the exception missing, it should be kept that way.
As libgcc is linked against every program linked using the GCC driver,
and is required by code generated with GCC, this would make it illegal
to distribute any non-GPL software built with GCC.
This is
>In practice everyone uses round to nearest even.
Not when implementing interval arithmetic or affine arithmetic, etc.
--
This space intentionally left blank.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> However, if you are satisfied with client-only diff (which is the main
> case when you'd be writing changelogs) working in alphabetical order, i
> should be able to wing that.
Client-only diff is the main case. (For more general cases it should be
pos
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Paul Schlie wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
While trying to implement folding of &a +- cst to &a[c] I came
along the C frontend, which for
int a[4];
int *p = &a[-1];
produces
p = &a + (int *)-4;
Would guess it should be:
p = &a - (int *)4;
> Yes, of course, but it is the C frontent that is producing
> &a + (int *)-4, not me. I'm just trying to work around this...
>
> In fact, it is c-common.c:2289 that does -4 -> (int *)-4
> conversion, but pointer_int_sum is already called with PLUS_EXPR.
> build_unary_op unconditionally expan
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:43:35PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> > However, if you are satisfied with client-only diff (which is the main
> > case when you'd be writing changelogs) working in alphabetical order, i
> > should be able to wing that.
>
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:25 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Paul Schlie wrote:
> Yes, of course, but it is the C frontent that is producing
> &a + (int *)-4, not me. I'm just trying to work around this...
>
> In fact, it is c-common.c:2289 that does -4 -> (int *)-4
> conv
On Feb 16, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
Then, I must add that I do not know much about the compiler's
internals...
If a[-1] os converted to a[(unsigned)-1], this is fine iff unsigned is
the same size as pointers.
-- Pinski
Aditi, Sorry, I personally don't have any experience producing a new front
end for gcc, but the below represents the way I'd approach learning how to
go about it; but suspect the only way you're going to successfully integrate
a new language front-end into gcc is to begin ripping into the C/C++/Jav
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 16:49 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:25 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Paul Schlie wrote:
>
> > Yes, of course, but it is the C frontent that is producing
> > &a + (int *)-4, not me. I'm just trying to work around this.
> In fact, it is c-common.c:2289 that does -4 -> (int *)-4
> conversion, but pointer_int_sum is already called with PLUS_EXPR.
> build_unary_op unconditionally expands &x[y] to x+y, regardless
> of the sign of y. Of course the standard says that they are equal.
> But is &x[-1] == x + (int *)4*(i
Daniel Berlin wrote:
Complete alphabetical order is not in the cards for diff, at least for
diffs involving server side (diffs that are client side are easily
sorted by filename).
This is because it would require losing the "streaminess" of the
protocol (unlike cvs, the client and the server in svn
On 2005-02-16 09:41:13 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Preferably, the sort algorithm should match 'ls'.
FYI, the way ls (from the coreutils) sorts the filenames is
locale-dependent. :(
> No problem. The client's request can include the current LOCALE value.
> However, I'm not sure that's derirable.
Hi,
Could somebody inform about status of ObjC++ branch ?
Recently I took CVS sources & built native MinGW compilers,
1. but version is 3.5.0 20040819 - very old !!!
2. and it produces internal compile error when I try to compile simplest ObjC
example with .mm extension:
#import
#import
@interf
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 09:41 -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Huh? I don't get this. You sort filenames *in* the server *before*
> you generate diffs. And you do the sorting within each directory;
> i.e. early before you do anything else. What does the "streaming
> protocol" ha
Sorry, yes:
&x[-1] == (int *)x + (int *)4*(int *)-1
would be correct/true, and probably
simplest; although equivalent to either:
&x[-1] == (int *)x + (int *)((int)4*(int)-1)
or:
&x[-1] == (int *)x + (int *)((size_t)4*(int)-1)
or:
&x[-1] == (int *)x + (int *)((size_t)4*(size_t)-1)
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Preferably, the sort algorithm should match 'ls'. (Specifically
> GNU ls - IIRC BSD ls doesn't case-fold, which I think is wrong.
The sort alghorithm has nothing to do with ls, but with your selection of
LC_COLLATE. But then, BSD (at least the variant u
Andreas Schwab wrote:
Per Bothner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Preferably, the sort algorithm should match 'ls'. (Specifically
GNU ls - IIRC BSD ls doesn't case-fold, which I think is wrong.
The sort alghorithm has nothing to do with ls, but with your selection of
LC_COLLATE.
If we're going to ni
Daniel Berlin wrote:
You assume the tree walker ever sees an entire directory at once, for
starters.
It seems a reasonable assumption that such a tree walker exists or
could be written without too much pain. I can imagine a tree walker
that iterates over file numbers (a la inodes), and that may be
A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on
mainline with gfortran at *all optimization levels (ie., -O0, -O1
and -O2)*. The problematic commit is
2005-02-13 Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR mudflap/19319
* gimplify.c (gimplify_modify_expr_rhs) [CALL_
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on
> mainline with gfortran at *all optimization levels (ie., -O0, -O1
> and -O2)*. The problematic commit is
>
>2005-02-13 Jason Merrill <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Wednesday, February 16, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Serguei Kouratov wrote:
@implementation MyClass; /// <<<--- Test.mm:13: internal compiler
error...
Is the ';' even supposed to be allowed there? Maybe the bug is that
the non-ObjC++ compiler accepts this.
-tim
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on
> > mainline with gfortran at *all optimization levels (ie., -O0, -O1
> > and -O2)*. Th
Snapshot gcc-3.3-20050216 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.3-20050216/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.3 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_3-20050216
You'll
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:13:09 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > A binary search has led to the cause of a serious regression on
>> > ma
During my efforts to compile the whole gcc with a C++ compiler I
noticed that
the gmp library is somehow problematic with regard to this. The gmp.h
header
is using the __cplusplus define at will not just to specify the linkage
class of
the symbols provided there (extern "C"), but to define the C
Given,
struct shared_ptr_struct
{
unsigned int phase : 24;
unsigned short thread : 16;
void *addr;
};
On the x86_64 (ie, Opteron[tm]) platform, GCC appears to designate the
underlying mode of this type as a BLKmode, instead of a TImode. This
has implications in terms of the qua
On 2005-02-16, at 12:32, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
Do not use the MPFR version that comes with GMP. It is too old.
Remember that you can override the default by setting CFLAGS.
The documentation doesn't say this. The configure scripts don't check
for it.
On 2005-02-16, at 19:03, Serguei Kouratov wrote:
Could somebody inform about status of ObjC++ branch ?
The biggest obstacle to merging the current ObjC++ code from
apple-ppc-patch is the recent invention of objc_info field to the
struct lang_tree for C. There are some comments there but apparently
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> I should note that svn treats it's remote connections as disposable, so
>> svn+ssh will probably connect more than once for things like remote
>> diffs. So if it takes a while to authenticate, this may not be your
>> best bet if yo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Complete alphabetical order is not in the cards for diff, at least for
>diffs involving server side (diffs that are client side are easily
>sorted by filename).
>This is because it would require losing the "streaminess" of the
>protocol (unlike cvs, the cl
Björn Haase wrote:
#ifndef TARGET_SPECIFIC_SUBSTITUE_FOR_MODE_DF
typedef float DFtype __attribute__ ((mode (DF)));
#else
typedef float DFtype
__attribute__ ((mode (TARGET_SPECIFIC_SUBSTITUE_FOR_MODE_DF)));
#endif
These libgcc2 fu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> At this stage we are trying to get the 'ld-2.2.5.so' working. We are
> facing problems in this. We are trying to run this on again on our own
> Linux kernel for ABACUS processor. The GOT & PLT generated through the GCC
> for ld-2.2.5.so is causing the problems.
>
> At
Benjamin Redelings I <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a reduced testcase from BOOST that fails with yesterdays CVS
> (4.0.0 20050214 (experimental)), but compiles under 3.4. I don't know
> if this is a bug in BOOST or in g++:
>
> -- begin testcase
> template< typename T, T N >
Hi,
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Gary Funck wrote:
> struct shared_ptr_struct
> {
> unsigned int phase : 24;
> unsigned short thread : 16;
> void *addr;
> };
>
> On the x86_64 (ie, Opteron[tm]) platform, GCC appears to designate the
> underlying mode of this type as a BLKmode, instead o
James E Wilson wrote:
Björn Haase wrote:
#ifndef TARGET_SPECIFIC_SUBSTITUE_FOR_MODE_DF
I see now that this is PR 19920. This message would have made more
sense if you had included that important info.
Anyways, I see that Richard Henderson has added a reasonable fix for it
now along the lines I
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 07:14:35PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:13:09 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:34:59 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >
> James E Wilson wrote:
> These libgcc2 functions really are tied to modes, not to types. So if double
> is SFmode, gcc will never call one of the *df* functions for it. Meanwhile,
> some targets that make double be SFmode also make long double be DFmode, and
> hence we do still need the *df* funct
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:24:58 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bad news. The problem is still present in HEAD, ie., source from
> 3 hours ago. Even worse news is cutting down the BLAS test
> program can be a chore. I'll see what I can do.
>
> To be clear, gfortran works fine with
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Noah John wrote:
> Apologies if this is the wrong place to send this, but the bottom of the
> page said send comments here.
This was, in fact, just the right thing to do, thanks!
> The link to Apple's website on the page
> "http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#powerpc-*-
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 10:59:00PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:24:58 -0800, Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bad news. The problem is still present in HEAD, ie., source from
> > 3 hours ago. Even worse news is cutting down the BLAS test
> > program can be a
47 matches
Mail list logo
