Paolo, what do you think?
I think I agree. After all when I added the "ln -s" support we did not
have anything remotely similar to the current logic for "make all",
"make unstage", "make stage".
Paolo
> Sorry for wrting to this mail address, but I did not find anywhere
> in the bug reporting documentation how to report a bug on
> the...documentation itself
You can report documentation bugs in the GCC Bugzilla bug tracking
system. You can read more on the subject at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/b
On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 16:49, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 01:28:48PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Looks like the new toplevel bootstrap infrastructure broke
> > bootstrapping on OpenBSD. I get a bootstrap comparison which is
> > caused by differences in the compilation dir
On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
>
> In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/REVISION, I can
> provide a new patch.
Maybe we should just set up the commit f
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 00:48 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hi,
Someone caused a >10% compile time regression yesterday for CSiBE, see
http://www.csibe.org/draw-diag.php?branchid=mainline&flags=-Os&rel_flag=--none--&dataview=Timeline&finish_button=Finish&draw=sbs&view=1&b
(But let's give Paolo some time to address the technical issues first;
we are still in stage 1, so only developers, packagers, and brave testers
are supposed to use what is going to become GCC 4.2. ;-)
Also the reason why I've been collecting issues so far, instead of
posting all patches for ap
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:18:21PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I think the problem is PWDCMD (defaults to pwd) in the top-level
> makefile. If your shell builds in pwd, then things will work. If it
> doesn't then you'll get /bin/pwd which gives the canonical path. Bash
> has a built-in pwd,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 01:26:18PM +, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 05:02, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> > In my patch, gcc/REVISION is created by gcc_update. If you don't use
> > gcc_update, gcc/REVISION may not be there.
> >
> > In any case, when we agree on what to put in gcc/
Hi all,
This is my first post. :-)
Recently, I found an odd behavior about dynamic_cast
across shared libraries.
This is my box:
linux kernel-2.4.21
gcc-3.4.3
(Check out my test_case.tar.bz2 for complete source
codes.)
I defined these classes and functions in libbase.so:
struct Base
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm opening a new branch and would like to request some assistance
> updating the online material. Specifically, how do I add the branch
> information to http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#devbranches. Also, would it be
> possible to create an associated pr
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 13:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I suspect that if you run a bootstrap of gcc on Linux with
> > PWDCMD=/bin/pwd it will fail too.
>
> Yes, I saw a suggestion about this on IRC, but I tried it - it doesn't
> fail. The path that matters is not one ever returned by PWDCMD bu
On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
and smaller code.
However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
instructions to the new, and so we are not emitting unwind information
for the stack pointer adjustment. The breaks stack traces on gcj, and
I susp
There are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ grep lang_checks Makefile.in
lang_checks=check-gcc
lang_checks_parallel = $(lang_checks:=//%)
$(lang_checks_parallel): site.exp
$(lang_checks): check-% : $(TESTSUITEDIR)/site.exp
Will adding @check_languages@ to lang_checks to make it support other
languages?
H
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
> and smaller code.
>
> However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
> instructions to the new, and so we are not emitting unwind information
> for the stack pointer a
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On i386 we replace (add sp -4) with (push reg). This generates faster
> > and smaller code.
> >
> > However, we are not copying RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P from the old
> > instructions to the new, and so we are not emittin
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem that is bugging me is if there is more than one
> instruction in the repleacement sequence, which one do you copy the
> REG_FRAME_RELATED_EXPR to?
I think an algorithm which should work fairly reliably in the general
case is:
1) Are there
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
get that into the form GCC wants.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props.html#svn.advanced.props.special.keywords
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword.
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
On Dec 18, 2005, at 2:17 PM, Kevin Andrew Kaploe wrote:
are they telling the truth?
Simple answer, Yes. The long answer is off-topic for this list.
A hint at the long answer lies in dependencies. If those are
precisely in sync, then there is no point at recompilation. If they
are out of
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> > provides a $Revision$ keyword.
>
> But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#version-value-in-source
I would like something, that substitutes automat
PR 22275 is about a change in the structure layout used by GCC when
#pragma pack is mixed with zero-width bitfields. In particular, in GCC
3.3 and earlier, zero-width bitfields still forced the next element to
be placed on an alignment boundary, just as they do in unpacked
structures. In GCC 3.4
Hi Paolo
> It supports all the bells and whistles like bubblestraps and
> restageN, which help during development. make restrap (taking a
> non-bootstrap build and using it as stage1) is not supported. make
> restageN is called make all-stageN, and there is also make
> all-stageN-gcc to rebuild gc
Hi everybody,
I am working on the intermediary tree representation of GCC right now
(writing a parser for it). I have a question regarding that.
If I declare a struct containing 2 fields like that in C:
struct foo {
int var_a;
char var_b;
} afoo;
afoo.var_a = 0;
afoo.var_b =
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:56:43PM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Subversion provides an "opt-in" version of keyword substitution, and
> provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
> get that into the form GCC wants.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 06:04:46PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2005, at 5:34 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
> >On 12/19/05, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
> >
> >And that would be?
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html
Hello,
For such a program,
int a=0;
int main(void)
{
...
}
We will see the compiler put the variable 'a' into the bss section.
That means that 'a' is a non-initialized variable. I don't know if this
is the gcc's strategy.
Happy Christmas.
Eric.
On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Hello,
For such a program,
int a=0;
int main(void)
{
...
}
We will see the compiler put the variable 'a' into the bss section.
That means that 'a' is a non-initialized variable. I don't know if this
is the gcc's strategy.
Yes for zero'd initi
>Yes for zero'd initialized variables, GCC puts them into BSS to say
>space in the executable.
Thanks. But, you say 'to say space in the executable'. I'm not clear
what does it mean.
Eric.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:11:46PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I think an algorithm which should work fairly reliably in the general
> case is:
>
> 1) Are there any old insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set?
> If no, stop.
> 2) For each old insn with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set:
> a) i
On Dec 20, 2005 08:17 AM, Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Yes for zero'd initialized variables, GCC puts them into BSS to say
> >space in the executable.
>
> Thanks. But, you say 'to say space in the executable'. I'm not clear
> what does it mean.
"save space".
Gr.
Steven
31 matches
Mail list logo
