Re: help: interfacing between C and fortran program

Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 08:39 schrieb Gaurav Gautam, Noida: > Hi, > > > I have a function written in fortran say fun(x, y), with x and y as integer > (scalars) . Function returns integer. > > > I need to call this function from a C program. How do I do it. > Can some one help me. > > Does G

Re: Loop information

Hello, > Can someone please help me getting the following information? > > 1) I would like to obtain the loop bounds (constant case) of all nested > loops > of a RTL insn. Is there a data structure over which I can iterate to get > bounds > for each nested loop of a RTL insn? > > 3) Can I deter

Re: help: interfacing between C and fortran program

Ingo Krabbe wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 14. September 2005 08:39 schrieb Gaurav Gautam, Noida: >>I have a function written in fortran say fun(x, y), with x and y as integer >>(scalars) . Function returns integer. >> >> >>I need to call this function from a C program. How do I do it. >>Can some one help m

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties, because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors switching to a compiler different from FSF GCC for Itanium.) Surely this depends on relative performance ...

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties, > > because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors > > switching to a compiler different from FSF GCC for Itanium.) >

Re: gccadmin's crontab

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > It may of course be necessary to make changes to the live crontab for > testing before checking them in, but once tested they should be posted to > gcc-patches and checked in. I agree. That was a temporary workaround I had to do and then I failed to

RE: When is it legal to compare any pair of pointers?

Original Message >From: Daniel Jacobowitz >Sent: 14 September 2005 02:27 > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:22:18AM +0100, chris jefferson wrote: >> I realise that according to the C++ standard it isn't legal to compare >> two pointers which are not from the same array. Is anyone aware of >> any

RE: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

Original Message >From: Mike Stump >Sent: 13 September 2005 20:28 > On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> I have seen both in gcc. I have found that "type* variable" is >> preferred in C++ code but I haven't found any guidelines for C code. > > If you ask gcc, you find:

Re: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

Dave Korn wrote: char* a, b, c; clearly we cannot allow this confusing notation, indeed this is a strong argument for char *a; which is really more in C style anyway I think.

Re: regmove fixups vs pseudos

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Any reason why we blindly assume destination registers will be hard >> registers here? >> >> Index: regmove.c >> === >> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/regmove.c,v >> retrieving revision 1.173 >> diff -p -U3 -r

Re: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

Dave Korn wrote: Original Message From: Mike Stump Sent: 13 September 2005 20:28 On Sep 13, 2005, at 12:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: I have seen both in gcc. I have found that "type* variable" is preferred in C++ code but I haven't found any guidelines for C code

RE: var_args for rs6000 backend

Sorry for delayed reply. As I said, I haven't looked at the code in awhile (before GIMPLE), but the TREE code is the symbol table that allows you to look up the types of arguments and the function return type. Yes, I think you ar right. I found some other functionalities in rs6000_gimplify_va

CFLAGS in one-tree style cross builds w/ newlib

Hi, As it seems to me, CFLAGS handling with newlib+gcc-4.0.x one-tree style cross-builds seems broken. So far I have tried different permutations of setting CFLAGS, CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD, CFLAGS_FOR_HOST and CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but have not been successful so far. Therefore - question: How is one supp

Re: regmove fixups vs pseudos

> The destination register which is set by a CALL will normally be > FUNCTION_VALUE, which is normally a hard register. dst is not the destination of the call, it's the destination of the SET/PLUS that's being optimized.

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:05:39AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote: > > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties, > > > because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distri

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

Steven Bosscher wrote: On Wednesday 14 September 2005 10:53, Robert Dewar wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: (If so, I'm wondering what it's going to buy the interested parties, because I have a hard time seeing one of the large GNU/Linux distributors switching to a compiler different from F

GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org, in the: pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.2-20050913/ subdirectory. It's important to test the actual tarballs, rather than CVS, to check for any packaging issues. If you can, download and build the tarballs, post test results to the gcc-tes

Re: [gelato-gcc] Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

I agree with Vladimir wholeheartedly. After working on OpenIMPACT for years, I reached the conclusion that the ONLY way to make a real difference for Linux Itanium users is to help improve the mainstream GCC compiler. That is why my team (esp. Bob Kidd) is actively helping with a strong superbloc

Re: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

On 09/14/2005 04:46 AM, Dave Korn wrote: [snip] IMO (and this is a _very_ IMO subject, so I acknowledge in advance that there is no one true way and that I may feel so but other people may feel differently), the argument for making the asterisk abut the variable name rather than the type is bec

On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Hi, I've asked this question twice at gcc-help, but got no response. On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? The GCC docs here (http://tinyurl.com/99wc8) suggest that it is a subset of ELF platforms. Is that correct? -- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com

Corrupted CVS respository?

As of Wed Sep 14 08:55:04 PDT 2005, I got # ./contrib/gcc_update ... P gcc/version.c cvs [update aborted]: branch attribute does not match file for `/cvs/gcc/gcc/zlib/contrib/dotzlib/DotZLib.build,v' Has anyone else seen it? H.J.

Re: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

This has gone off-topic. Please continue elsewhere.

Symbolic replacement

Hi, I am trying to find out whats the best way to do the following. I want to replace some pre-defined variables at a few pre-defined line with a new temperory variable. I guess the front-end should be the best place to do it. Do I need to do this for each rule in c-parse.y ? Is there a mor

Re: Corrupted CVS respository?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, H. J. Lu wrote: As of Wed Sep 14 08:55:04 PDT 2005, I got # ./contrib/gcc_update ... P gcc/version.c cvs [update aborted]: branch attribute does not match file for `/cvs/gcc/gcc/zlib/contrib/dotzlib/DotZLib.build,v' Has anyone else seen it? Overseers has been noified a

Re: coding style: type* variable or type *varible

Larry Evans wrote: IIUC, this declares all a, b, and c as char*; yet, the only difference is the typedef is used to abbreviate the type as expected, typedef is not like #define, I don't see a problem here

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: Or let's put it this way: Would AdaCore have the resources to support two entirely different backends. Would it even want to hire new engineers or let its existing work-force learn compiler internals of another compiler to support just one target? I don't think so. T

Re: regmove fixups vs pseudos

DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The destination register which is set by a CALL will normally be > > FUNCTION_VALUE, which is normally a hard register. > > dst is not the destination of the call, it's the destination of the > SET/PLUS that's being optimized. Sorry, I misread. In fact

Re: When is it legal to compare any pair of pointers?

On Sep 13, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This bit binutils, in the form of a crash in a hash function on > Solaris. I think that was pointer subtraction, rather than comparison, > however. > Perhaps someone who remembers this problem more clearly than > I do can chip in if

Re: CFLAGS in one-tree style cross builds w/ newlib

Ralf Corsepius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As it seems to me, CFLAGS handling with newlib+gcc-4.0.x one-tree style > cross-builds seems broken. > > So far I have tried different permutations of setting CFLAGS, > CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD, CFLAGS_FOR_HOST and CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET, but have not > been succes

Re: When is it legal to compare any pair of pointers?

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:15:43PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Sep 13, 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This bit binutils, in the form of a crash in a hash function on > > Solaris. I think that was pointer subtraction, rather than comparison, > > however. > > > Per

Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

Ave gcc people Build environment: -Redhat 7.3 with fedora legacy updates. -gcc build configured with : ../configure --prefix=/opt/gcc-4.0.2-RC1 --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-threads=posix --disable-shared My build of gcc 4.0.2 RC1 is still bootstrapping but I see these snippets in my lo

RE: Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

Original Message >From: Gcc K6 testing account >Sent: 14 September 2005 19:43 > Ave gcc people ¡Hola! > Is "-DENABLE_CHECKING" supposed to happen in a RC/release? > Or has -DENABLE_CHECKING nothing to do with the configure > option --enable-checking? --enable-checking defaults to on

Re: Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

> > Original Message > >From: Gcc K6 testing account > >Sent: 14 September 2005 19:43 > > > Ave gcc people > > ¡Hola! > > > Is "-DENABLE_CHECKING" supposed to happen in a RC/release? > > Or has -DENABLE_CHECKING nothing to do with the configure > > option --enable-checking? > > --e

Request link to www.devicetools.com

Dear Sir or Madam, DeviceTools (www.devicetools.com) is a comprehensive, free resources portal for the connected device developers. It includes software tools, silicon, resources and information for engineers building embedded devices. We would like to ask you add a link from your site http:/

RE: Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

Original Message >From: Andrew Pinski >Sent: 14 September 2005 19:56 >> Original Message >>> From: Gcc K6 testing account >>> Sent: 14 September 2005 19:43 >> >>> Ave gcc people >> >> !Hola! >> >>> Is "-DENABLE_CHECKING" supposed to happen in a RC/release? >>> Or has -DENABLE_

RE: Gcc 4.0.2 RC1 checking not disabled?

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Dave Korn wrote: > Original Message > >From: Gcc K6 testing account > >Sent: 14 September 2005 19:43 > > > Ave gcc people > > ¡Hola! > > > Is "-DENABLE_CHECKING" supposed to happen in a RC/release? > > Or has -DENABLE_CHECKING nothing to do with the configure > >

Re: Any plan to support Windows/x86-64?

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:26:43PM -0400, Ross Ridge wrote: >> Is there any plan to support Windows/x86-64? > >I haven't heard of anyone wanting to work on such a port. > >> What are needed for the port? > >What you'ld need for any OS port. GCC needs to support the Windows >x64 ABI, you need a sui

Re: Symbolic replacement

On 9/14/05, shreyas krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > I am trying to find out whats the best way to do the following. > I want to replace some pre-defined variables at a few pre-defined > line with a new temperory variable. I guess the front-end should be > the best place to do it.

Re: Symbolic replacement

> > On 9/14/05, shreyas krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to find out whats the best way to do the following. > > I want to replace some pre-defined variables at a few pre-defined > > line with a new temperory variable. I guess the front-end should be > > the best

proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

I recently proposed to the Open Group an action that would modify the POSIX specification for the c99 command that is often implemented using GCC. I thought the action would not affect GCC's conformance, but Joseph S. Myers raised the issue of UCNs and multibyte characters and I'd like to double-c

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Mark Mitchell wrote: > It's important to test the actual tarballs, rather than CVS, to check > for any packaging issues. If you can, download and build the tarballs, > post test results to the gcc-testresults mailing list with and > contrib/test_summary. If you encounter problems, please file th

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:13 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Assuming that no critical problems emerge, I'll do the final release > within the next week. Looks good on x86-linux and x86_64-linux for Ada: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00691.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresult

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:50:19PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > In response Joseph S. Myers pointed out that this action would require > c99 to use interpretation B of section 5.2.1 (page 20) of the C99 Rationale > . > The Rationale s

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Paul Eggert wrote: >So my question is: Is it a burden on GCC to require interpretation (B)? > >My understanding is that GCC already uses (B), and that the answer is >"no, it's no problem", but if I'm wrong please let me know. GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and any imp

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Ross Ridge wrote: GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and any implementation of "c99" that uses GCC would presumably also be non-conforming. What exactly is the observable non-conformance?

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Ross Ridge wrote: > GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and > any implementation of "c99" that uses GCC would presumably also be > non-conforming. Robert Dewar wrote: > What exactly is the observable non-conformance? GCC doesn't claim C99 conformance. The following URL

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

On Sep 14, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote: I've asked this question twice at gcc-help, but got no response. On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? autoconf will answer this question for you, please use it. Giving you an answer strikes me as dangerous. If you

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes: > Ross Ridge wrote: > > GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and > > any implementation of "c99" that uses GCC would presumably also be > > non-conforming. > > Robert Dewar wrote: > > What exactly is the observable non-conformance? >

Tom Tromey as Java maintainer

The steering committee has agreed (as has Andrew Haley and Tom) that Tom Tromey should be added as a Java maintainer, in addition to libgcj maintainer. (About time, considering how much Java work Tom has done, including more and more compiler work.) Thanks for all the work you've done over th

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Paul Eggert wrote:- > Here's the problem. Currently, POSIX places almost no requirements on > how c99 transforms the physical source file into C source-language > characters. For example, c99 is free to treat CR as LF, ignore > trailing white space, convert tabs to spaces, or even (perversely) >

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Mike Stump wrote: > On Sep 14, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote: > >> I've asked this question twice at gcc-help, but got no response. >> On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? > autoconf will answer this question for you, please use it. Do you mean I should run auto

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Ross Ridge wrote: > GCC doesn't use (A), (B) or (C). GCC doesn't conform to C99 and > any implementation of "c99" that uses GCC would presumably also be > non-conforming. Robert Dewar wrote: > What exactly is the observable non-conformance? Ross Ridge wrote: > GCC doesn't claim C99 conformance

checksum files not ^C safe

These types of rules are not ^C safe: cc1-checksum.c : cc1-dummy$(exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) cc1-dummy$(exeext) > $@ It is a general property that builds are ^C safe, the above changes retard that feature. If you output to a temp file, a

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:33:19PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:23:54PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: >>>Maybe one solution would be to patch pex-win32 for mingw so that it >>>could understand '#!' style shell scripts? That would at least allow >>>bootstrapping. >> >>Tha

Re: [gelato-gcc] Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

There were many good ideas and suggestions in the email thread. Speeding up GCC performance with community effort is the ultimate path for Itanium. HP is committed to work with the GCC community to make this happen. I also agree with the observation that we need an intermediate path to beef u

RFA: pervasive SSE codegen inefficiency

Consider the following SSE code (-march=pentium4 -mtune=prescott -O2 -mfpmath=sse -msse2) #include __m128i foo3(__m128i z, __m128i a, int N) { int i; for (i=0; i The first inner loop compiles to paddq %xmm0, %xmm1 Good. The second compiles to movdqa %xmm2,

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Ross Ridge wrote: GCC doesn't claim C99 conformance. The following URL lists a number of different areas in which GCC is known not to conform: I was not asking the general question, I was asking how it fails to conform wrt the particular technical issue at hand.

where is the floatsidf?

Hi, Still software floating point. :< Thanks for the help. Now I use soft-float to build libgcc, but _floatdidf.o fails for Cannot branch to undefined symbol, __floatsidf. Should I define floatsidf in md file? But I have no floating point registers. Regards. Eric

Re: where is the floatsidf?

Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for the help. Now I use soft-float to build libgcc, but _floatdidf.o > fails for Cannot branch to undefined symbol, __floatsidf. Should I define > floatsidf in md file? But I have no floating point registers. __floatsidf should be defined by _si_to

where is the floatsidf?

Thank you very much about the help. Acctually, I have included fp-bit.c in libgcc.mk. But the order is not right, I think. Because _si_to_df.o is after the _floatdidf.o. Also, how to change _si_to_df.o to _floatsidf.o? In md file? I'm wondering that maybe I needn't to implement libgcc2.a, but that

Re: RFA: pervasive SSE codegen inefficiency

On Sep 14, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: Consider the following SSE code (-march=pentium4 -mtune=prescott -O2 -mfpmath=sse -msse2) <4256776a.c> The first inner loop compiles to paddq %xmm0, %xmm1 Good. The second compiles to movdqa %xmm2, %xmm0 paddw

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

> I was not asking the general question, I was asking how it fails > to conform wrt the particular technical issue at hand. Since GCC doesn't have any code that does (A), (B), or (C) it doesn't place a burden on GCC to require it to do (B). That's sufficient to answer the techinical issue at hand

Re: where is the floatsidf?

Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Acctually, I have included fp-bit.c in libgcc.mk. But the order is not > right, I think. Because _si_to_df.o is after the _floatdidf.o. Also, how > to change _si_to_df.o to _floatsidf.o? In md file? The order of the objects in the libgcc.a archive does no

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes: > > I was not asking the general question, I was asking how it fails > > to conform wrt the particular technical issue at hand. > > Since GCC doesn't have any code that does (A), (B), or (C) it doesn't > place a burden on GCC to require it to do (B). That's

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

I am the opposite of an expert on this topic. But in fact gcc does appear to have code related to (A), (B), and (C). I repeat those choices here from Paul's original e-mail: A. Convert everything to UCNs in basic source characters as soon as possible, that is, in translation phase 1

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Laurent GUERBY wrote: On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:13 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Assuming that no critical problems emerge, I'll do the final release within the next week. Libgcj seems broken with --enable-java-awt=gtk,xlib --enable-gtk-cairo. (on darwin ppc and linux ppc at least, but I guess o

Re: checksum files not ^C safe

On 14/09/2005, at 5:32 PM, Mike Stump wrote: These types of rules are not ^C safe: cc1-checksum.c : cc1-dummy$(exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) build/genchecksum$(build_exeext) cc1-dummy$(exeext) > $@ It is a general property that builds are ^C safe, the above changes retard