Hi,
I have an interesting problem with compiling gcc 4.1.0 on
i386-unknown-linux-gnu. Building xgcc (with gcc 3.4.3) works fine.
But rebuilding the compiler with xgcc the 2nd time (with -fprofile-use)
fails with an assembler error:
$ stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i386-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -c
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:56:13AM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the version 0.8.0 of qemu in the Debian-pool will not compile on
> PowerPC with GCC 3.4. The following patch will fix it:
And suck performance wise with exploding code size. Without
speaking of potential atomicity issu
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 10:22 +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> I subscribe to the "RecentEdits" RSS feed of the GCC
> Wiki. Of late, there have been a lot of "AddComment Plug-in"
> entries in the feed, with no apparent way of finding out
On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 01:03 +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Monday 27 March 2006 21:00, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 10:35 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> >
> > > Start by looking at tree-vrp.c:infer_value_range.
> > I'm not so sure this is the best place to start.
>
On 03/27/06 16:35, Nic Volanschi wrote:
> The checks are specified using a new option --tree-check, and are
> powerful enough to express user-defined memory leaks, null pointer
> dereferences, unreleased locks, etc., but also more basic checks such
> as using an unsafe construct.
>
Oh, excellent.
On Mar 27, 2006, at 11:39 PM, mohanlal jangir wrote:
Why does gcc put initialized data in .data section and
uninitialized data in bss section? Does it provide any
optimization? Also, normally gcc initializes global data to zero
then what kinds of data go to .bass section? An example would be
Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
> > Denis Chertykov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > > I think that better to call update_eliminables() somewhere after
> > > > > setup_save_areas()
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. We do that. About 15 lines after the l
I am trying to compile some fairly old legacy c code with gcc 4.1
in FC5 and have been able to eliminate all the compiler warnings save
one...
warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'exit'
...which is repeated through the compilation of the sources. I can
google lots o
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 21:32, Jack Howarth wrote:
>I am trying to compile some fairly old legacy c code with gcc 4.1
> in FC5 and have been able to eliminate all the compiler warnings save
> one...
>
> warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'exit'
>
> ...which is repe
Jack Howarth wrote:
I am trying to compile some fairly old legacy c code with gcc 4.1
in FC5 and have been able to eliminate all the compiler warnings save
one...
warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function 'exit'
It should be defined in .
Is there a missing #include
Paul,
Thanks. I had been trying stdlib.h but didn't realize it had to
occur before the other headers like stdio.h. Placing it first solved
the problem.
Jack
If we do a search of main function in gcc4..0.2/gcc directory, we can find
several.
I understand collect2.c-->collect2, main.c (wrapper of toplev.c) -->cc1,
gcov.c-->gcov. Can someone give a brief introduction what gen*() is ued for?
For example, genattr is compiled to destgcc/gcc/build/genattr,
I do have one other issue to resolve in this legacy c code which I
am unclear on. The code uses structures of the form..
struct bound_description {
int type;
WORDdescr;
} bnddescr[] = {
BNDTYP_NULL,"null",
BNDTYP_BOND,"bond",
BNDTYP_ANGLE,
Hi Jeff, thanks for the info.
> > I agree that this kind of special casing by the middle-end is all
> > wrong - the front-end should do it.
> I'd disagree. While it may at first seem useful to have ASSERT_EXPRs
> live through the entire optimization pipeline, they're actually going
> to get in th
On Mar 28, 2006, at 12:59 PM, sean yang wrote:
If we do a search of main function in gcc4..0.2/gcc directory, we
can find several.
I understand collect2.c-->collect2, main.c (wrapper of toplev.c) --
>cc1, gcov.c-->gcov. Can someone give a brief introduction what gen*
() is ued for? For example
On Mar 28, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I do have one other issue to resolve in this legacy c code which I
am unclear on.
Wrong list. This list is for the development of gcc, not other
software.
warning: initialization makes integer from pointer without a cast
Yup.
...for the
The gen* family of executables is used during the build process to make
various .h files from the .md files for the chosen target (and nowhere
else AFAIK)
sean yang wrote:
If we do a search of main function in gcc4..0.2/gcc directory, we can
find several.
I understand collect2.c-->collect2, m
Hi,
I want to profile an application in linux. Now I am using -pg option
with gcc for generating the profile data. Then used gprof for getting
profiles. In this profiling, it starts from first function (main()) to
ending function. Actually I want to profile functions with in 2 events
(triggers),
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:35:21AM +0530, jayaraj wrote:
> I want to profile an application in linux. Now I am using -pg option
> with gcc for generating the profile data. Then used gprof for getting
> profiles. In this profiling, it starts from first function (main()) to
> ending function. Actual
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp??ndola wrote:
> I have put toghether a hack to remove the convert callback. It consists in
> 1) adding a lang prefix to the implementations of convert (cxx_, c_,
>gfc_, etc)
> 2) defining a convert2 function that is basically a copy of c_convert
> 3) co
Hi all:
for the following statement, how can I get the field_id info for
the structure member
struct{
int a;
int b;
} pair;
int main()
{
int * p = &pair.a;
}
It seems that we can't get the field_id info because of address taken
operator. it treats the "&pair.a" as "&pair + ofset of a".
I need the field_info to help in alias analysis. for example:
int *p = &pair.a;
int *q = &pair.b;
then if I can set length of "*p" to 4,ofset is '0' . for "*q" to
"8,4". also I know that p definitly points to pair.a and q points to
pair.b, then i can say "*p" and "*q" are not aliased with each oth
On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Tianwei Sheng wrote:
I need the field_info to help in alias analysis. for example:
int *p = &pair.a;
int *q = &pair.b;
then if I can set length of "*p" to 4,ofset is '0' . for "*q" to
"8,4". also I know that p definitly points to pair.a and q points to
pair.b, then
23 matches
Mail list logo
