Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC1

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

Re: successful build on i686-pc-cygwin

Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Sat, May 07, 2005 at 04:44:44PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > > >>Original Message >> >> >>>From: J?rgen Havsberg Seland >>>Sent: 06 May 2005 23:30 >>> >>> >>>additional information: Important to mount all binary folders with the >>>-X option, as other

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC1

> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If I compile that with GCC-3.4, I get: >> >> $ size tmp.o >> textdata bss dec hex filename >> 243 0 0 243 f3 tmp.o >> >> With GCC-4.0: >> >> $ size tmp.o >> textdata bss dec hex filename >>

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC1

> Etienne Lorrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If I compile that with GCC-3.4, I get: >> >> $ size tmp.o >> textdata bss dec hex filename >> 243 0 0 243 f3 tmp.o >> >> With GCC-4.0: >> >> $ size tmp.o >> textdata bss dec hex filename >>

Re: Proposed resolution to aliasing issue.

On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > > Mark, > > it occurred to me that asking the question you pose may use language that > > is > > more unfamiliar than necessary. How about this question instead -- assume > > > > struct S { int s; }; > > str

RE: Borland software patent restricting GNU compiler development

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Bosscher > Sent: 11. maj 2005 14:20 > To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Paolo Bonzini; Ingrid Marson > Subject: Re: Borland software patent restricting GNU compiler development > > On Wednesday 11 May 20

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

Andrew Pinski wrote: Actually it is easy to peak at any of them and you will see that the tree optimizators (lim to be in fact) has changed something somewhere. The trouble is that I'm running the tests on Red hat Enterprise Linux, and even with the address randomization allegedly turned

Re: volatile semantics

> "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Geoffrey> Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Still, never mind what the C spec appears to say, optimizing away >> the cast cannot possibly what the user intended. Geoffrey> The user might have written a routine which tak

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:42:26PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > >> > >> > >> > >Actually it is easy to peak at any of them and you will see that the > >tree optimizators (lim to be in fact) has changed something somewhere. > > > > > The trouble is that I'm runnin

Re: ppc-eabisim is broken in mainline

Aldy Hernandez wrote: * config/rs6000/sysv4.opt (mlittle): Handle. * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_handle_option): Set target_flags_explicit when appropriate. Thanks, this allowed my build to complete. It's regression testing now.

Re: check_ext_dependent_givs

Hi, Bonzini, Thank you for your reponse. I do not want to modify the old loop optimizer defined in loop.c. I am preparing to port some improvements done on gcc-3.5 to gcc-4.0, and the GIV optimizations is part of my concerns. On IA-64, the GIV optimization can hardly improve the performance.

packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

Given a binary distibution of GCC, for example, built to install under /usr/local, is it possible to configure and build the compiler in such a way that a binary packaging method such as RPM can allow a user to specify an alternate installation point (perhaps /opt, or even the user's home director

Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Given a binary distibution of GCC, for example, built to install under > /usr/local, is it possible to configure and build the compiler in such a > way that a binary packaging method such as RPM can allow a user to specify > an alternate installation poin

Is -static a link-only switch?

Does the -static switch play any role during compilation, or is it a link-only switch? A quick review of gcc.c, indicates that -static may play a role on some targets: /* %{static:} simply prevents an error message if the target machine doesn't handle -static. */ However, the info documenta

RE: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

> > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > executables and header files. [...] Ian, thanks. Which versions qualify as "recent" above? GCC 3.4, or 4.0, or both? Is there any documentation on how

Re: Is -static a link-only switch?

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:37:54AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: > > Does the -static switch play any role during compilation, or is it > a link-only switch? A quick review of gcc.c, indicates that -static > may play a role on some targets: > > /* %{static:} simply prevents an error message if the ta

Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: > > > > > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > > executables and header files. [...] > > Ian, thanks. > > Which versions qualify a

stack alginment code

hello: i know the codes below is for alignment purpose, -- .type main, @function main: pushl %ebp movl%esp, %ebp subl$8, %esp andl$-16, %esp -- but I th

Re: Is -static a link-only switch?

On May 12, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: I don't know of any; it was a close call on one RTOS I worked on recently, but it turned out that nothing else was necessary. This sort of applies to MIPS but that gets a separate option (-fno-pic -mno-abicalls). -static on Darwin has an effec

Re: Is -static a link-only switch?

"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does the -static switch play any role during compilation, or is it > a link-only switch? It is a link-only switch. > A quick review of gcc.c, indicates that -static > may play a role on some targets: > > /* %{static:} simply prevents an error message

RE: Is -static a link-only switch?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > In fact many targets compile code differently depending upon whether > the code is to be put into a shared library or not, but this is > controlled via options like -fpic, not -static. Is it generally safe on all currently supported targets to assert -fno-pic w

Re: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful

> Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | Me ranting about -fdump-translation-unit had nothing to do with your > | problem, really, it's just that your message reminded me that I was > | going to bring that up. > > I think -fdump-translation-unit should remain. I ther

GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known problem. When I compiled openssl-0.9.7g using -O3 and -ftree-loop-linear as CFLAGS, openssl failed its self-tests for the MD2 code. Interestingly, it succeed

Re: check_ext_dependent_givs

I modified the code in check_ext_dependent_givs to let the BIVs always successfully pass the check, then test the example you have given to me, but the result is the same as before. It depends on whether the old loop optimizer will actually decide that it is worthwhile to use the induction var

RE: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > Telling the dynamic linker about a dynamic libgcc is still a problem, > but that is a problem whereever you put the compiler. If I'm not interested in build a dynamically linked gcc, or building libgcc and related libraries as dynamic libraries, can I simply as

Re: GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote: > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't > a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known > problem. > > When I compiled openssl-0.9.7g using -O3 and -ftree-loop-linear as > CFLAGS, openssl fai

Re: GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 12:30 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote: > > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't > > a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known > > problem. > > > > When I compiled open

Re: GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote: > > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't > > a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known > > problem. > > > > When I compiled openssl-0.9.7g using -O3 and -ftree-loo

Re: GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:45 +0200, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote: > > > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't > > > a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known > > > problem

Re: Proposed resolution to aliasing issue.

Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Given the following: struct A { B& b1; B& b2; const B& b3; A(B& b): b1(b),b2(b),b3(b) { } }; Is the compiler allowed to suppress b2 and/or b3 from the layout of the object. The next question come

Re: GCC 4.0.1-beta20050507 miscompiles openssl-0.9.7g with -ftree-loop-linear

Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Does -fno-tree-ch fix it? (i'm just curious) > No. It still ICEs.

Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?

Wouldn't it make sense for operand_equal_p to start with: int operand_equal_p (tree arg0, tree arg1, unsigned int flags) { if (arg0 == arg1 && !TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (arg0)) return 1; ... } Am I missing something here? Thanks. Diego.

Looking for cheap high-quality software?

Get a head start on a new computer career http://lcdrtz.7et4ao7i4h7wmq7.mckayaaebj.com

Re: Is -static a link-only switch?

"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > > In fact many targets compile code differently depending upon whether > > the code is to be put into a shared library or not, but this is > > controlled via options like -fpic, not -static. > > Is it generally safe o

Re: Proposed resolution to aliasing issue.

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > > Given the following: > > > > struct A { > > B& b1; > > B& b2; > > const B& b3; > > > > A(B& b): b1(b),b2(b),b3(b) { } > > }; >

i386.md:17581: warning: operand 1 missing mode?

With the current 4.0 snapshot: ../../gcc-4.0/gcc/config/i386/i386.md:17581: warning: operand 1 missing mode? Is this cause for concern? Should I open a PR for this?

Re: GCC 4.0.0 Performance Regressions?

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 05:52:40PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:08:43PM -0500, Jason Bucata wrote: > > Would it help to report some others [regressions]? > > I might have time later this week to > > work on some of the others, especially now that I have a much better idea of

Re: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful

"Dams, Dennis \(Dennis\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I'm trying to use the -fdump-translation-unit option (gcc (GCC) > 4.1.0 20050505 (experimental)), but it does not seem to do > anything. What's the right way to use it - should I specify any > additional switches/options? -fdump-translation-

Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

"Gary Funck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote (in part): > > Telling the dynamic linker about a dynamic libgcc is still a problem, > > but that is a problem whereever you put the compiler. > > If I'm not interested in build a dynamically linked gcc, or building > libgcc and re

mixing warning flags

How to convert this code? There is no single OPT_* that reflects when the first warning is emitted. if (params == 0 && (warn_format_nonliteral || warn_format_security)) warning (0, "format not a string literal and no format arguments"); else warning (O

Re: packaging a GCC binary distribution so it can be installed at arbitrary locations?

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:41:58AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote: > Yes, with recent versions of gcc you can move the entire tree around > and the gcc driver will still be able to find the various internal > executables and header files. [...] Ian, thanks. Which versions qualify

Re: mixing warning flags

On Thu, 12 May 2005, DJ Delorie wrote: > if (params == 0 && warn_format_security) > warning (OPT_Wformat_security, >"format not a string literal and no format arguments"); > els if (params == 0 && warn_format_nonliteral) > warning (OPT_Wforma

Re: mixing warning flags

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 03:46:41PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > > How to convert this code? There is no single OPT_* that reflects when > the first warning is emitted. > > if (params == 0 && (warn_format_nonliteral || warn_format_security)) > warning (0, "format not a string lite

Re: Proposed resolution to aliasing issue.

On May 12, 2005, at 4:32 AM, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: Is the compiler allowed to suppress b2 and/or b3 from the layout of the object. Yes, of course, in some cases. For example when whole program analysis tells it, it can. The next question comes when b1,b2 and b3 are in various places in

Re: ld and R_386_GOTOFF relocs

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:13:27AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2005, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:48:46AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > > Hello! > > > > > > I have gotten under peculiar circumstances following: > > > (sysvinit) init.o: relocation R_3

Re: ppc-eabisim is broken in mainline

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 07:44:46PM -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Joern. > > My combined tree is acting up, so I haven't tested a full build of > ppc-eabi*, but this fixes the -mlittle problem. > > Let me know how it goes. This patch fixed Joern's problems (well, the ones so far ;-)). I have te

Re: mixing warning flags

> To reflect the logical intent of these options while passing a > unique OPT_* to each warning call, you'd need to add an option > -Wformat-security-nonliteral for the warnings in the intersection of > the two options; At one point I proposed a system that let you say "this option infers these o

Link to reporter's article regarding Borland patent.

Here's the article in case anyone was interested: Eric

Re: ld and R_386_GOTOFF relocs

On Thu, 12 May 2005, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:13:27AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > On Wed, 11 May 2005, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 12:48:46AM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote: > > > > Hello! > > > > > > > > I have gotten under peculiar circumstance

Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > Am I missing something here? Probably not. r~

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:11:46AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:42:26PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >Actually it is easy to peak at any of them and you will see that the > > >tree optimizators (lim to be in fact) ha

Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:37 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > Am I missing something here? > > Probably not. Isn't operand_equal_p used in situations where we're eliminating instructions -- and isn't the TREE_SIDE_EFFECT bit there

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 04:36:58PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:11:46AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:42:26PM +0100, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > > > Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >Actually it is easy to peak at any

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mark Mitchell wrote: | GCC 3.4.4 RC1 is available here: | | ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050510/ | | As usual, please test -- by using exactly those tarballs, so that we can | detect packging errors. Put problems into Bugzilla, and Cc:

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:33:05PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > I got the same comparsion failure. > Have you tried with Zdenek's patch to LSM that I approved earlier today? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01150.html Diego.

Re: Why doesn't operand_equal_p check pointer equality first?

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:20 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:37 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Probably not. > Isn't operand_equal_p used in situations where we're e

Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

Yesterday I tried building gcc again for the first time since two weeks and encountered what looks like an endless loop. This command: stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/opt/gcc/4.1-devel/x86_64-suse-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -g -O2 -gnatpg -gnata -g -O1 -fno-inline \ -I- -I. -Iada -I/cvs/gcc/gcc/ada /cvs/gc