Hi all,
some times ago I wrote about a modification
of the '-finstrument-functions' option of 'gcc'.
My goal was (and is still) to obtain additionnal
informations about functions (as symbols
addresses is sometime not enough).
So I made a patch to allow to send more data
to the __cyg_profile_func
The problem is (?) that get_base_address for
state_inD.6032_16->savedD.6026[regD.6037_3]
(which is of type )
returns
*state_inD.6032_16
(which is of type ).
The documentation of get_base_address does not talk about any
type guarantees - but I guess IVOPTs rather wanted to have
state_inD.60
On 6/1/05, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rewrite_address_base is trying at
>
> *op = build1 (INDIRECT_REF, TREE_TYPE (*op), with);
To see the failure in various places during a build of gcc apply the attached
patch with places
gcc_assert (TREE_TYPE (*op) == TREE_TYPE (TREE_TY
Hi!
During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers
we run into type mismatches like
fold_binary (code=PLUS_EXPR, type=0x4037e438,
op0=0x404a6940, op1=0x404a6d40)
with the types
(gdb) call debug_tree (type)
constant invariant 32>
unit size constant invariant 4>
alig
Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:03:24AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>> In this case I'd replace the .* with _5 and see if it matches
>> properly. If it does, then I'd tighten the wildcard.
>> Something like p_[0-9]*
>>
> Excellent, that worked. I wonder why
Hello!
the sequence used for linking on x86 (but most archs will have it too)
-lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s
--no-as-needed
contains duplicate. Is this really necessary?
Will the '--as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed' ever apply? The missing
symbols will be
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
binutils-2.16.90.0.3-1.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.8sparc.sparc
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparc64
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparcv9
glibc-devel-2.3.3-99.sparc
glibc-d
> LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jun 2 08:44:04 UTC 2005
Works on Solaris as of Wed Jun 1 04:42:14 UTC 2005
> Any ideas of what goes on?
Top of ChangeLog here is:
2005-06-01 David.Billinghurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR target/21854
* config/mips/mips-protos.h: Declare mips_use_ins_ext_p
W
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:46PM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> Hello!
>
> the sequence used for linking on x86 (but most archs will have it too)
> -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s
> --no-as-needed
> contains duplicate. Is this really necessary?
>
> Wil
On 6/2/05, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > LAST_UPDATED: Thu Jun 2 08:44:04 UTC 2005
>
> Works on Solaris as of Wed Jun 1 04:42:14 UTC 2005
>
> > Any ideas of what goes on?
>
> Top of ChangeLog here is:
>
> 2005-06-01 David.Billinghurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>PR target
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 01:59:46PM +0200, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > the sequence used for linking on x86 (but most archs will have it too)
> > -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s --no-as-needed -lc -lgcc --as-needed -lgcc_s
> > --no-as-needed
>
Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 01/06/2005 17:35:20:
> On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
>
> > 3) The counted loop register 'ar.lc' of IA-64 can not be
> > updated directly. Another temporary register is needed
> > to evaluate the value of the actural loop coun
On Jun 02, 2005 03:09 PM, Mostafa Hagog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As to the subtraction for IA-64; I expect that the gen_sub2_insn handles
> the subtraction correctly and generate the required RTL to do the
> subtraction according to the machine description.
But that expectation is incorrect.
Original Message
>From: Sanjiv Kumar Gupta
>Sent: 30 May 2005 14:55
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Sanjiv Kumar Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>
>>> I am using gcc 3.3.1 release as my port, and looks
>>> like I have hit a problem with greg.
>>
>>
>> You neglected to mention wha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/06/2005 04:29:17:
> Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Wednesday 01 June 2005 16:43, Canqun Yang wrote:
> > > Hi, all
> > >
> > > I've taken a look on modulo-sched.c recently, and found
> > > that both new_cycles and orig_cycles are imprecise. The
> > >
Hello,
I'm seeing compiler crashes during garbage collection when using mudflap.
The problem appears to be that some basic_block_def structures point to
edge_prediction structures which point to edge_def structures that have
already been ggc_free()'d.
Now, looking at remove_edge (cfg.c) is does
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Hello,
I'm seeing compiler crashes during garbage collection when using mudflap.
The problem appears to be that some basic_block_def structures point to
edge_prediction structures which point to edge_def structures that have
already been ggc_free()
gcc -g -DENABLE_CHECKING -DENABLE_ASSERT_CHECKING -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-
strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-v
ariadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o cc1-dumm
y c-lang.o stub-objc.o attribs.o c-errors.o c-lex.o c-pr
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers
> we run into type mismatches like
This isn't a type mismatch if the compatible_p langhook says
they aren't. Which I expect is true.
> question is can we / do we want
> main.o tree-browser.o libbackend.a ../libcpp/libcpp.a ../libcpp/libcpp.a
> ../
> libiberty/libiberty.a
> libbackend.a(modulo-sched.o): In function `doloop_register_get':
> ../../gcc/gcc/modulo-sched.c:284: undefined reference to
> `doloop_condition_get'
>
> doloop_end isn't defined
On 6/2/05, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers
> > we run into type mismatches like
>
> This isn't a type mismatch if the compatible_p langhook says
> they
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 08:46:25PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Does it mean if the middle-end exchanges one
> type for the other there should be no observable effects (correctness
> wise) down the road?
Yes.
r~
> Hello,
>
> I'm seeing compiler crashes during garbage collection when using mudflap.
>
> The problem appears to be that some basic_block_def structures point to
> edge_prediction structures which point to edge_def structures that have
> already been ggc_free()'d.
>
> Now, looking at remove_edg
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> I didn't have any cleanup_cfg in between earliest place putting
> predictions and the profiling pass consuming them, so this scenario
> didn't happen. This has however changed a long time ago. I guess just
> teaching remove_edge to walk prediction list if it is present and k
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050602 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050602/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050602
You'll
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 6/2/05, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:21:31AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > During type checking of the middle-end in the tree-optimizers
> > > we run into type mismatches like
> >
> > This isn'
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1_generate.c assumes sizeof(int) is 4.
This of course fails on any target where sizeof(int) is 2. They may
fail when sizeof(int) is 8 too, or at least they won't be testing the
full range of possibilities.
I've noticed that quite a few testcases make these types of
as
Hi,
We require
gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20)
on Intel Itanium2.
Please let us know where can I get this.
Thanks and Regards,
Prafulla Shukla,
ISV,
Patni, Pune,
(W): +91 20 3984 4206
(W): +91 20 3984 4000 (X 4206)
http://www.patni.com
World-Wide Partnerships. World-Class
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Prafulla Shukla wrote:
Hi,
We require
gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-20)
^^^
What about to try www.redhat.com ?
This e-mail message may contain proprietary, confidential or legally
privileged information for the sole use
29 matches
Mail list logo
