Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 22/04/2005 09:39:09:
>
> Thanks!
> For the record, this refers to a patch I sent to Mostafa and Canqun to
> do what Mostafa suggested last month to make SMS work for ia64, see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg02848.html.
I have teste
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 22:54 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:34 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > FWIW: IMO, NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C actually is an OS/libc feature ("Your
> >>
On 5/8/05, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
Hello,
> I have looked at the GCSE CPROP passes with CSE path following
> disabled ("-O1 -fgcse --param max-cse-path-length=1"). The input
> code are the cc1-i files from 20040726 (with checking enabled).
While that discussion flies way
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> FWIW: IMO, NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C actually is an OS/libc feature ("Your
> system headers are c++ aware"), therefore it is hardly possible or
> useful to ever use "#define NO_IMPLICIT_EXTERN_C" on "generic" targets
> (*-elf, *-coff etc.).
You could apply t
Original Message
>From: Ralf Corsepius
>Sent: 09 May 2005 09:27
> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 22:54 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 21:34 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 13:58, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Splitting up libgcj.so probably makes sense even for the Linux distro
> > case (the one I am most concerned with at the moment), just so that
> > apps that don't use AWT or Swing don't really pay for it.
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 04:14, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 01:59:06PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > I was wondering if anyone could tell me how to write an (empty)
> > instruction pattern that does a truncate/extend conversion on a register
> > 'in place'.
> >
> > All the con
Hello,
after setting up the latest snapshot, i was caught off guard as all my
numbers were off (and usually it's better than a swiss clock).
So, i've double checked, stripped some cruft from compiler command
line and pitted various snapshots (20050410, 20050424, 20050501) vs
20050508 in my app.
No
It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency. Here is a patch that
does so. This patch makes gcse eliminate redundant loads after stores
On Monday 09 May 2005 03:55, Matt Kraai wrote:
> On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 07:31:38PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 03:03:23AM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > On Monday 09 May 2005 02:26, Matt Kraai wrote:
> > > > Howdy,
> > > >
> > > > The rules for c-objc-common.o, loop-unroll
Hi there,
I'm to compile an x86->powerpc cross-gcc (using uclibc). I have the
following error message:
| In file included from
/opt/oe2/powerpc-tmp/work/gcc-cross-3.4.3-r10/gcc-3.4.3/build.i686-linux.powerpc-linux-uclibc/powerpc-linux-uclibc/nof/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/codecvt.h:475,
|
Hi,
I am porting gcc (version 4.0) to a CPU supporting conditional jumps, which does
not have a CC register. I have combined the comparision and jump operation in
the definition of "cbranchsi4" as show at the end of this message.
This works fine on gcc 3.4, however on gcc 4.0 it creates an error
James E Wilson wrote:
William S Fulton wrote:
test.cxx:15: warning: non-local variable ‘::
::Instance’ uses anonymous type
Just grepping the sources for the warning, I find this comment
/* [basic.link]: A name with no linkage (notably, the name of a class
or enumeration declared in
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 17:45 +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
>
>
>
> It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
> is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
> and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency. Here is a patch that
> d
It appears that GCSE considers "read only memory" as call clobbered, which
is not the case in CSE. I have took the test for read-only memory from CSE
and add it to GCSE where we compute the transparency.
My wild guess is that this was not possible when MEM_READONLY_P was
RTX_UNCHANGING_P, and now
Hi,
As far as I can understand, it's not possible to build gcc 4.0.0 and
gcc 3.4.* using GNU binutils with current release 2.15 of GNU
binutils. One has to use the CVS sources or at least one file.
FYI binutils-2.16 has just been released. You might want to try that.
I have installed binutils-2
References: <427E8378.1010309 at brenda-arkle dot demon dot co dot
uk><873bsxbclc.fsf at codesourcery dot com><20050508225133.GA2890 at
dementia dot proulx dot com><87r7gh9tmq.fsf at codesourcery dot com>
Apologies if this has lost its "References" field - it shouldn't have
done, but off-hand I
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:40:48PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > The best way is to have a post-reload splitter that splits the insn
> > into nothing at all.
>
> Is that really valid? I would have thought it would break the data flow.
Obviously you only split to nothing when the registers m
On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 17:11, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 12:40:48PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > The best way is to have a post-reload splitter that splits the insn
> > > into nothing at all.
> >
> > Is that really valid? I would have thought it would break the data
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:45:24PM +0300, Mostafa Hagog wrote:
> EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (blocks_with_calls, 0, bb_index, bi)
> {
> ! if (! MEM_READONLY_P (x))
Looks like you should push this check here:
case MEM:
if (!MEM_READONLY_P (x))
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> So do we fully recreate *all* the flow information before a scheduling
> pass?
Yes.
r~
i686-pc-linux-gnu
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.0.0
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4 (Nahant)
Linux snoopdog 2.6.9-5.0.3.EL #1 Mon Feb 14 09:52:18 EST 2005 i686 i686 i386
GNU
Bernard Leak wrote:
[in reply to why by default an MTA should be installed
in order to be able to send reports in the usual way]
Special system restrictions may make it
impracticable to install the expected tools, but this is really
a red herring.
Hmm...
Installing an MTA, whatever its size may be,
Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Installing an MTA, whatever its size may be, has the potential
> of introducing more work, more open ports, more firewall building,
> more following the associated securitiy advisories absent a firewall
> or not absent a firewall, more ...
Not at all.
Bernard Leak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My system has developed, for hysterical reasons, as a minimal
> installation of GNU/Linux on a P4. Minimal really was minimal - no
> networking, no X... Everything else has been added on demand. I
> managed to get my networking running with no problems w
Zack Weinberg wrote:
All modern MTAs can be configured, quite easily, in a
'dumb client' mode where they accept mail only from the local host --
Well, "easily" is arguable if you aren't a Unix sysadmin, and
depending on the MTA...
There are even programs, such as sSMTP
which, not a month ago had b
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> The gcc test result script (via Mail) expects the /usr/sbin/sendmail
> interface, but not Allman's implementation. You can install whatever
> mail transport agent you prefer.
> Again, not having an MTA installed indicates a monumental error in the
> packaging or installation
Matthew Woodcraft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is at least one serious distribution which has considered having no
> /usr/sbin/sendmail (or mailx) in a default installation:
>
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2005-February/004207.html
What a horrible idea. It's not just abo
Mainline bootstrapped fine on 6 May 05. It is broken today with
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/bin/ -isystem
/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/include -isystem
/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/sys-include
-L/usr/home/sgk/gcc/obj41/gcc/..
Georg Bauhaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Good Thing, and improving. However, be sure to add a procedure
> to your network monitoring setup to inform you of risky bugs in network
> related software. And this is where work starts to be caused by
> the assumption that e.g. a GCC shell script can s
Is anybody collecting information on performance regressions in 4.0.0 (vs.
3.4.3)? I've got some results on POVRAY and BYTEmark, and BYTEmark saw some
performance regression, particularly with profiled optimization
(-fprofile-{generate,use}):
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-329765.htm
Steve Kargl wrote:
Mainline bootstrapped fine on 6 May 05. It is broken today with
./xgcc -B./ -B/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/bin/ -isystem
/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/include -isystem
/usr/home/sgk/work/41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/sys-include
-L/usr/home/sg
Jason Bucata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anybody collecting information on performance regressions in 4.0.0
> (vs.
> 3.4.3)? I've got some results on POVRAY and BYTEmark, and BYTEmark
> saw some performance regression, particularly with profiled
> optimization (-fprofile-{generate,use}):
> ht
Kazu Hirata wrote:
Hi,
I have two questions about the C++ front end.
Consider a C++ program
static const int array[] = { 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 };
int
foo (int a)
{
return array[7];
}
I am trying to fold array[7] into 2. It turns out that if T is an
ARRAY_REF,
TREE_READONLY (TREE_OPERAND (T
> Mark Mitchell writes:
>> Kazu Hirata wrote:
>> ...
>> static const int array[] = { 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 };
>>
>> int
>> foo (int a)
>> {
>> return array[7];
>> }
>>
>> I am trying to fold array[7] into 2. It turns out that if T is an
>> ARRAY_REF,
>>
>> TREE_READONLY (TREE_OPERAND (T,
Paul Schlie wrote:
- ??? no such thing, you can't "dynamically" initialize a "static const",
as then it's not a "static const", but rather simply a global "const"
(as a "static const" object is logically equivalent to a named/addressable
literal, yes?)
No, it's not.
static const int i = f();
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:03:23PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> >I suspect the problem arose with this commit
> >
> >2005-05-08 Julian Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Probably; so,
Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 05:03:23PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Steve Kargl wrote:
I suspect the problem arose with this commit
2005-05-08 Julian Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Probably; so, if you submi
> From: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>> - ??? no such thing, you can't "dynamically" initialize a "static const",
>> as then it's not a "static const", but rather simply a global "const"
>>
>> (as a "static const" object is logically equivalent to a named/addressable
> From: Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Paul Schlie wrote:
>>> - ??? no such thing, you can't "dynamically" initialize a "static const",
>>> as then it's not a "static const", but rather simply a global "const"
>>>
>>> (as a "static const" object
Hi Mark,
> That's a bug, or, rather, a place where the C++ front-end is failing
> to give full information to the optimizer. It should be
> TREE_READONLY. There are some tricky bits, in that if we're doing a
> dynamic initialization, we presently cannot mark it TREE_READONLY,
> but this is a sta
I've gone through the GCC 3.4 PRs. I'm going to make a final push
tonight to get a few of the C++ PRs fixed, and then I'm going to declare
a freeze.
If that seems short notice, I previously announced last May 7th as the
freeze date, so you've already had more time than you could have
expected
Paul Schlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> static const int i = f();
>
> Admittedly didn't think that was legal, as I though all "static const"
> initializer values needed to be resolvable at compile time, directly or
> indirectly from literal values by th
Hi,
I am working on a fresh C++ port and I am filling in all the machine
specific hooks.
How do I run the C++ testsuite on my compiler? I am familiar with the
GCC torture/execute tests and have my backend passing those tests
reasonably well. Now, I am looking for something similar for C++ to
test
GCC 3.4.4 is now slushy.
All non-documentation patches require my explicitly approval.
3.4.4 RC1 will be building overnight.
FYI,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
45 matches
Mail list logo
