Hi all,
On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please
with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is:
- in general,
- as implemented in the 3.4 series and
- as implemented in the 4.0 series.
At work we're using 3.4 and we have managed to shoot our foot of with
Hi Laurent,
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> Here is the initial wiki page for the CompileFarm project:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
>
> Feel free to add detailed proposals there.
>
For the moment the compile farm will host only i686 machines. I'm
proposing a project to diversify the availa
I'm trying to compile gcc-3.3.6 on powerpc. I am having a heck of a time
getting rid of the following problem. I've tried several combinations of
*FLAGS as well as passing ASFLAGS. What is the sure fire way to pass
flags to the assembler when compiling GCC?
if [ -f stmp-dirs ]; then true;
Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please
with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is:
- in general,
- as implemented in the 3.4 series and
- as implemented in the 4.0 series.
At work we're using 3.4 and we hav
>
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please
> > with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is:
> > - in general,
> > - as implemented in the 3.4 series and
> > - as implemented in the 4.0 series.
> >
> > At
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 06:12 -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please
> > with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is:
> > - in general,
> > - as implemented in the 3.4 series and
> >
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 09:33 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On this controversial subject, could somebody please - pretty please
> > > with a cherry on top - tell me what the current status is:
> > > - in general,
> > > - as implemented in the
> Yes, I'm aware of the list. My question was what the current behaviour
> of the various gcc versions is. And if gcc supports the various work
> around mentiod. Like explicity configuring the behavour of the 'catch
> (...)' etc..
There is none yet because there have been no consensus yet. That i
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:51:17AM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Yes, I'm aware of the list. My question was what the current behaviour
> > of the various gcc versions is. And if gcc supports the various work
> > around mentiod. Like explicity configuring the behavour of the 'catch
> > (...)' etc
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 09:53 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:51:17AM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > Yes, I'm aware of the list. My question was what the current behaviour
> > > of the various gcc versions is. And if gcc supports the various work
> > > around mentiod.
On 14 Aug 2005, Zack Weinberg yowled:
> Kaveh R. Ghazi said:
>> Hmm I'm curious, what systems (if any) have fprintf_unlocked?
>
> At the time I thought glibc had it, but I don't see it on my (2.3.5)
> system now.
It doesn't appear in the changelogs either.
Is it possible you got confused with fp
Hi,
> To my untrained eye, this looks a little like a bug. In
> v850/lib1funcs.asm, .L_return_interrupt should IMHO be in the
> .call_table_text section, not .text. (Would you like to try making the
> change? It's still line 1459 in 3.4.4) We might be able to sneak in a
> fix before the experts ar
Nix said:
> On 14 Aug 2005, Zack Weinberg yowled:
>> Kaveh R. Ghazi said:
>>> Hmm I'm curious, what systems (if any) have fprintf_unlocked?
>>
>> At the time I thought glibc had it, but I don't see it on my (2.3.5)
>> system now.
>
> It doesn't appear in the changelogs either.
>
> Is it possible yo
> I'm not going to be able to remember exactly. It might be worth
> looking at various proprietary Unixes to see if they've got
> fprintf_unlocked, but given the date I don't think I was looking at
> one of them. My best guess is that I simply assumed glibc had it,
> since it seemed to have
> > I'm not going to be able to remember exactly. It might be worth
> > looking at various proprietary Unixes to see if they've got
> > fprintf_unlocked, but given the date I don't think I was looking at
> > one of them. My best guess is that I simply assumed glibc had it,
> > since it seeme
On i386-unknown-freebsd4.10 I started to see the following part of the
bootstrap go into an endless loop (that is, not terminating after more
than a day and being killed via a system ulimit):
ASM_HIDDEN_OP='' \
GCC_FOR_TARGET=' ./xgcc -B./ -B/sw/gcc-current/i386-unknown-freebsd4.10/bin/
-isyste
On Aug 15, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Can someone else reproduce this on an i386 or some other target?
This should been already fixed by:
2005-08-15 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR 23386
It was caused by:
2005-08-13 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR t
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:03:33PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> xgcc: Internal error: Terminated (program cc1)
> Please submit a full bug report.
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
> gmake[2]: *** [crtbegin.o] Error 1
> gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/files/pfeifer/OBJ-0814-0208
On Aug 15, 2005, at 1:03 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
ASM_HIDDEN_OP='' \
GCC_FOR_TARGET=' ./xgcc -B./ -B/sw/gcc-current/i386-unknown-
freebsd4.10/bin/ -isystem /sw/gcc-current/i386-unknown-freebsd4.10/
include -isystem /sw/gcc-current/i386-unknown-freebsd4.10/sys-
include -L/files/pfeifer/OBJ-08
Hey,
Thanks a million for all your replies.
I dont want to use a cross-compiler but I want to
directly compile for PowerPC.
I am trying to use the option:
../configure --with-cpu=PowerPC. And it is giving me
an error during make saying
"Unknown CPU given in --with-cpu=PowerPC"
Can anybody hel
On Monday 15 August 2005 06:37 pm, Vijaya Kishore Idimadakala wrote:
> Can anybody help?? Any tiny help is greatly
> appreciated.
This is a list for developers.
--
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd
a
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Aug 15, 2005, at 4:03 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> >Can someone else reproduce this on an i386 or some other target?
>
> This should been already fixed by:
> 2005-08-15 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> PR 23386
>
> It was caused by:
> 2005-08-13 Sebast
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 07:55:00PM +0200, Torsten Mohr wrote:
> I wonder now how to proceed, do i need to report this stuff officially
> somewhere?
I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the L_callt_save_interrupt
#ifdef, making it consistent with the following one for
L_callt_save_all_interrupt.
Hello Everyone,
Greetings! I apologize ahead for asking an non-specific question. I
have a question about the liveness analysis. This is what I wanted to
do.
I want to check to see if an instruction is live after a certain number of
stage. (eg. 3 cycles)
if (INSN is not live for more than 3 c
24 matches
Mail list logo
