Mainline not slushy

There was some discussion over the weekend about putting mainline into a slush mode to deal with recent breakage. I never formally instituted the slush, but there seems to have some self-healing activity, and a lot of the problems are gone. As was pointed out earlier, having multiple major projec

Re: Porting problem from GCC-4.0 to GCC 4.1

"Shrirang Khishti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >I have ported GCC-4.0 for a new target. Initially I started porting > with GCC-3.4 and then shifted to GCC-4.0 without any problems. Now I > want to port same code for GCC-4.1 . As there are some structural > differences in GCC-4.0 and gcc-4.1 bac

Which program can I use to see VCG dumping from GCC

Hi, In this page , it's said that "If you view these files using a suitable program, you'll get output similar to the following." However, when I use xvcg to view test.c.01.sibling.vcg, xvcg errors: Wait.aLine 5: attribute T_Co_hidden currently not implement

Re: RTL alias analysis

On 1/25/06, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 22, 2006, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 1/22/06, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't think it is any different. GCC's exception for unions only > >> applies if the object is accessed using th

Re: How to reverse patch reversal in cfgcleanup.c (Was: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code)

Joern RENNECKE wrote: For easier reviewing, I have attached the diff to the cfgcleanup version previous to the patch backout. Thanks. Let me see if I understood the problem - please correct me if I describe anything incorrectly. The previous cross jumping code didn't care about register liv

Re: Which program can I use to see VCG dumping from GCC

On 1/26/06, Jie Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > In this page , it's said that > "If you view these files using a suitable program, you'll get output > similar to the following." However, when I use xvcg to view > test.c.01.sibling.vcg, xvcg errors:

Re: RTL alias analysis

On Jan 26, 2006, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So it is perfectly valid, but if GCC reorders the read from *ip past >> the store to *dp, it turns the valid program into one that misbehaves. > *ip = 15; ii = *ip; *dp = 1.5; dd = *dp; > Here^^^ > you are accessi

Re: RTL alias analysis

So, is union is a very useful feature in ISO C, without gcc's extension? It seems that the only legal use of union is to use the same type through the whole life of the object. Here is the rationale: Quoting Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 1/25/06, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w

Re: Attribute data structure rewrite?

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> re this mail: > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-09/msg01357.html > >> > >> do you still have the code around? Are you still willing to > >> contribute it? > >> Maybe you could upload it to a branch j

Re: How to reverse patch reversal in cfgcleanup.c (Was: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code)

Bernd Schmidt wrote: Thanks. Let me see if I understood the problem - please correct me if I describe anything incorrectly. The previous cross jumping code didn't care about register liveness, since it just checked for identical instruction streams. The new, more clever code, requires tha

Re: How to reverse patch reversal in cfgcleanup.c (Was: RFA: re-instate struct_equiv code)

On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:20 +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > Joern RENNECKE wrote: > > For easier reviewing, I have attached the diff to the cfgcleanup version > > previous to the patch backout. > > Thanks. Let me see if I understood the problem - please correct me if I > describe anything incorre

Re: RTL alias analysis

Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | So, is union is a very useful feature in ISO C, without | gcc's extension? It seems that the only legal use of union | is to use the same type through the whole life of the object. | | Here is the rationale: | | Quoting Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Attribute data structure rewrite?

On 25/01/2006, at 11:52 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote: svn log --stop-on-copy svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/stree-branch I got my branches confused; it's on static-tree-branch. Revision 88377. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: RTL alias analysis

On Jan 26, 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't see anything in the ISO C standard that implies that. > This > x.v1 = 384; > x.v2 = 94.08; > int v = x.v2; > x.v1 = v; > is valid fragment. But can you see anything in it that makes it undefined? Failing t

Re: Problem with gfortran or did I messsed up GMP installation?

Hi, On 2006-01-25 13:10:50 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: > Compile GMP 4.1.4: > > $ ../configure ABI=32 --prefix=/gcc-test --enable-mpfr You shouldn't use the MPFR version distributed with GMP; it is very old and buggy. It is much better to compile GMP without MPFR support then compile M

Re: RTL alias analysis

Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jan 26, 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | | > I don't see anything in the ISO C standard that implies that. | | > This | | > x.v1 = 384; | > x.v2 = 94.08; | > int v = x.v2; | > x.v1 = v; | | > is valid fragment

Re: x86-64 linux, gomp ICE in trunk

On 1/25/06, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'll need to do what this message suggests. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Sorry for the lag. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25983

Re: Problem with gfortran or did I messsed up GMP installation?

Quoting Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Hi, On 2006-01-25 13:10:50 -0600, Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote: Compile GMP 4.1.4: $ ../configure ABI=32 --prefix=/gcc-test --enable-mpfr You shouldn't use the MPFR version distributed with GMP; it is very old and buggy. It is much better to com

gcc-4.0-20060126 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060126 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060126/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Declaration of a guard function for use on define_bypass

I'm using store_data_bypass_p from recog.c as the guard for a define_bypass within a machine description. I'm seeing the following warning/error that I'd like to clean up. cc1: warnings being treated as errors insn-automata.c: In function 'internal_insn_latency': insn-automata.c:53265: warning:

Re: Declaration of a guard function for use on define_bypass

Peter Steinmetz wrote: I'm using store_data_bypass_p from recog.c as the guard for a define_bypass within a machine description. I'm seeing the following warning/error that I'd like to clean up. cc1: warnings being treated as errors insn-automata.c: In function 'internal_insn_latency': insn-aut

Corrupted Profile Information

I'm working on a series of profile-driven optimes with gcc-3.4.3. I need profile information available for the PRE phase (implemented in gcc with gcse.c and lcm.c). However, gcc-3.4.3 does not provide profile information that early in the compile, so I moved the call to `rest_of_handle_branch

Reconsidering gcjx

Now that the GPL v3 looks as though it may be EPL-compatible, the time has come to reconsider using the Eclipse java compiler ("ecj") as our primary gcj front end. This has both political and technical ramifications, I discuss them below. Steering committee members, please read through if you wou

Re: Reconsidering gcjx

Technical approach. Historically we've wanted to have a 'native' java-source-code-reading compiler, that is, one which parses java sources and converts them directly to trees. From what I can remember this was based on 3 things: A couple of other factors: * Compile time. It is at least poten

Re: Problem with gfortran or did I messsed up GMP installation?

Vincent Lefevre wrote: You shouldn't use the MPFR version distributed with GMP; it is very old and buggy. It is much better to compile GMP without MPFR support then compile MPFR 2.2.0 separately: http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/ Heh... If MPFR 2.2.0 (fully patched) is configured with --enabl

Re: Future possible stack based optimization

Il giorno mer, 25/01/2006 alle 22.29 +0100, Marcel Cox ha scritto: > > I saw that stack instructions on Intel platform are not used that > > much. I think this is a pity cause stack operations are small (size > > optimization) and usually fast (from Pentium two consecutive push/pop > > are execut

Re: issue with references to weak symbols in PIEs

FYI, it is a linker bug: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2218 I posted a patch for it. H.J.