Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 26 February 2006 14:23, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>> Did richard's untested patch not fix this?
>
> No. That patch only makes postreload not emit those reg-reg moves,
> but it does not prevent reload from producing the redundant insns in
> the fi
On Feb 26, 2006, at 11:46 PM, Pratik Mehta wrote:
I am looking for a C++ ABI implementation
This doesn't make any sense.
My need is only to demangle the symbol names that are
produced by gcc.
However, this makes perfect sense.
By searching the web, I came across libiberty and
libcwd, bu
Thanks for the help,
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, David Edelsohn wrote:
> If you are building on a 32-bit only system, you need to configure
> with --disable-aix64 so that it does not try to build 64-bit libraries.
> GCC currently expects to be able to run executables in all multilib modes
> when b
Hallo,
this is now bug 26481
i have attached the build log
On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Andreas Conz wrote:
>
> now there is a problem building the POWER part of libstdc++ :
>
> -->8-
> -->8-
>
> I a
On 24 February 2006 23:42, Perry Smith wrote:
> On Feb 24, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> The problem is this:
>>>
>>> struct foo {
>>> int a;
>>> int b;
>>> int c;
>>> };
>>>
>>> static const int foo::*j = &foo::c; // accepted
>>>
>>> class do
Thanks on answer.
I'll try to do something similar.
Cheers
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Stump" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nemanja Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "GCC Development"
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: static inline function body is missing
On Feb 2
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 18:29 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:54:09PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Cross building and installing gcc-4.1.0 rc2 (--prefix=/usr/local)
installs these hea
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 08:08 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 18:29 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi -
> >>
> >>On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:54:09PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 26 Feb 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 15:17 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 08:08 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> > >On Sun, 2006-02-26 at 18:29 -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Hi -
> > >>
> > >>On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 10:54:09PM +0100, Gerald Pf
Thank you and apologies to all.
I simply never looked at paragraph 1 of 5.19. I just (for some
reason) jumped over it. But it says (as you state) that there is a
difference between. I discovered this yesterday but didn't want to
add more noise to the mailing list.
Again -- thanks and s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Enigmail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEAyO5MPiy0tCWlz4RAoLWAJ4iWjiTKTYPH0EJmjXyot68+4ee1QCgw/H8
XngfDRCbqpwesc2NT9hZO94=
=tnLf
-END PGP SI
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 08:15:58AM +0100, J.J.Garcia wrote:
> Just gathering info about passing the testsuite for gcc 2.95.3, i've just
> downloaded the tarball from GNU and i realize that there is no specific
> 'testsuite' folder included.
Is there a reason why you want to use a 6 1/2 year old co
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:00:42PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> It has been illegal to initialise a static class member inside the class
> definition since sometime back in the early 90s. You must provide a static
> instantiation elsewhere and initialise that.
g++ used to allow in-class-definition
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 09:00:25AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.0-20060223
Looks good on s390-ibm-linux and s390x-ibm-linux
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-02/msg01489.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testre
On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 12:00:42PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
It has been illegal to initialise a static class member inside
the class
definition since sometime back in the early 90s. You must provide
a static
instantiation elsewhere and initiali
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:47 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Another possibility is to simply not allow conversions between a
> > subtype and basetype.
>
> Such a patch also solves the problem. But I'm not sure to understand
> the impact on other codes. Is this kind of con
On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 09:48 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > Another possibility is to simply not allow conversions between a
> > > subtype and basetype.
> >
> > Such a patch also solves the problem. But I'm not sure to understand
> > the impact on other cod
Are there really only two P3 serious regressions in the
gcc 4.1 branch now or is this a glitch in the gcc web pages?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.1&target_milestone=4.0.3&target_milestone=4.1.0&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> I've just attached a patch that seems to solve this issue for me.
> Thinking about this once more, I think my patch is equally wrong.
> These headers shouldn't be installed to includedir at all, but should be
> installed into gcc's internal include dir
> ($libdir/gcc/$targ
Jack Howarth wrote:
> Are there really only two P3 serious regressions in the
> gcc 4.1 branch now or is this a glitch in the gcc web pages?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.1&target_milestone=4.0.3&target_milestone=4
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> My suspicions appear to be correct. This never triggers except for
> Ada code and it's relatively common in Ada code. No surprise since
> I don't think any other front-end abuses TYPE_MAX_VALUE in the way
> the Ada front-end does. This wouldn't be the first time we've had
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:47 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > Another possibility is to simply not allow conversions between a
> > > subtype and basetype.
> >
> > Such a patch also solves the problem. But I'm not sure to understand
> > the impact o
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 20:26 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:47 +0100, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > > Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > > Another possibility is to simply not allow conversions between a
> > > > subtype and basetype.
> > >
> > > Such a patch als
Hello,
> > > Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > > Another possibility is to simply not allow conversions between a
> > > > subtype and basetype.
> > >
> > > Such a patch also solves the problem. But I'm not sure to understand
> > > the impact on other codes. Is this kind of conversion between a type
>
ON THE CALL: Shin-ming Liu (HP), Vladimir Makarov (Red Hat), Diego
Novillo (Red Hat), Mark Smith (Gelato), Bob Kidd (UIUC), Andrey
Belevantsev (RAS), Arutyun Avetisyan (RAS), Mark Davis (Intel)
We spent some time up front discussing the GCC track at the upcoming
Gelato ICE conference (www.gelato.o
I've reviewed the open 4.0.x regressions, in preparation for 4.0.3.
Because this is very much a maintenance release, my primary concern is
regressions relative to 4.0.x for x <= 2. If it's been broken in 4.0.x
all along, then it's not a high priority at this point; the goal is to
provide an upgra
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> My current expectation is that I will apply your patch, test locally,
> but not produce an RC3.
I built a native compiler with the patch. I
The ssp include files ended up in $prefix/lib/include/ssp. There are no
other files in $prefix/lib/include. The C++ header files a
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joseph thinks these should go in $libsubdir; I'm going to try that now.
With much help from Daniel and Joseph, I have a patch for this problem,
which I am now testing.
This will be the final patch for GCC 4.1.0. I plan to work through the
release checklist tonight. As al
Nemanja Popov wrote:
dlx-elf-gcc -S foo.c -funit-at-a-time
Mike's suggestions are good in general, but there is another thing you
should be looking at. Since you are explicitly asking for
-funit-at-a-time, I would suggest looking in cgraph. cgraph has code to
optimize away unused static fu
Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
I'm new to GCC and I'd appreciate if somebody could point me to _all_
files which are responsible for intermediate representation and
constructing it.
See the internals documentation, for instance:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Passes.html#Passes
We have two
Douglas B Rupp wrote:
The HP debugger on IA64 VMS defines a new Dwarf2 attribute that computes the
offset of the end of the prologue from the beginning of the function. To
implement this an end prologue label must be emitted and some related info
saved in dwarf2out.c.
However I've noted that c
Bruno GALLEGGIANTI - LLSP wrote:
I'm looking for tools that can generate AST (Abstract Syntax Tree) from
C files.
I have found with gcc toolchain the option -dump-tree-original. The
generated files are very interresting for me and I think they can be
exploited for my project.
The dump files g
Hi,
I installed cross gcc3.4.4 on my linux/pc server with
--target=mips-elf. When I use mips-linux-gcc to compile a c file, the
assembly code will have psuedo-op used for system v.4 (e.g. .cpload).
And the object file is of big endian. So I have to use flag
-mno-abicalls and -EL every time. Are the
"Eric Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I installed cross gcc3.4.4 on my linux/pc server with
> --target=mips-elf. When I use mips-linux-gcc to compile a c file, the
> assembly code will have psuedo-op used for system v.4 (e.g. .cpload).
> And the object file is of big endian. So I have to use
On Feb 27, 2006, at 10:52 PM, Eric Fisher wrote:
Hi,
I installed cross gcc3.4.4 on my linux/pc server with
--target=mips-elf. When I use mips-linux-gcc to compile a c file, the
assembly code will have psuedo-op used for system v.4 (e.g. .cpload).
And the object file is of big endian. So I have
But, they told me that mips-elf is for 'no-opsys' target, and does't
support glibc. So if I want to use gcc for operantion system and
glibc, should I use mipsel-linux?
Thanks
27 Feb 2006 22:55:48 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor :
> "Eric Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I installed cross gcc3.4.
I think we shouldn't make abicalls as default in my opinion. :-)
2006/2/28, Eric Christopher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 11:01 PM, Eric Fisher wrote:
>
> > But, they told me that mips-elf is for 'no-opsys' target, and does't
> > support glibc. So if I want to use gcc for operantio
"Eric Fisher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we shouldn't make abicalls as default in my opinion. :-)
Since all code that runs on MIPS GNU/Linux and uses shared libraries
must be compiled with abicalls, it would be rather unfortunate if
abicalls were not the default for the mips-linux-gnu
To whom it may concern,
I used to compile my program with gcc-2.7.2 for Sparc, recently I wanted to
support Unicode in my program and found gcc-2.7.2 can't support Unicode at all.
After that I change to gcc-2.96. However, the output format of the latter one
is elf32-sparc and that of the fir
39 matches
Mail list logo
