I try to build gcc trunk on sparc/sparc64 linux.
The configure was done like this:
../gcc/configure --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-shared --with-cpu=v7
--enable-languages=c,ada,c++,fortran,java,objc,obj-c++,treelang
when I enter the libgomp subdir, I see this:
make[2]: Entering directory
`/us
On 4/18/06, Aldy Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > losing a slight missed optimization on the tree level.
>
> Yay, exactly what I'm trying to fix. Glad you agree.
You can try disabling the write_only heuristic completely on mem-ssa branch
and see if you get huge regressions on the compile
On 17 Apr 2006 17:44:50 -0600, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mark> In any case, the broader question is: to what extent should we have
> Mark> experimental options in releases, and how should we warn users of their
> Mark> expe
On Monday 17 April 2006 12:21, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-04-16 21:30:08 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> * Trailing whitespace patrol.
find . -name "*\.[ch]" | xargs perl -pi -e's/\s*$/\n/'
`Allan
On 4/18/06, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 17 April 2006 12:21, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-04-16 21:30:08 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > * Trailing whitespace patrol.
> find . -name "*\.[ch]" | xargs perl -pi -e's/\s*$/\n/'
Or `egrep "[ \t]$" *.[
On 17 April 2006 23:47, David Nicol wrote:
> Thank you. Nobody is aware of such a problem.
There is no problem. What you described - at least, in the terms you used
to describe it in your first post - is exactly what the compiler does and
exactly what it should do:
"GCC appears to be treatin
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Thus, it is algorithmically unsound in it's current form :)
> Again, this is *only* the piece that attempts to convert loops
> to perfect nests.
> This is in fact, not terribly surprising, since the algorithm used was the
> result of
> Sebastian and I sitting at my whiteboa
On Tue, 2006-04-18 11:57:31 +0200, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/18/06, Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Monday 17 April 2006 12:21, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2006-04-16 21:30:08 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > * Trailing whitespace pa
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3)/TI UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparc
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparc64
glibc-devel-2.3.3-99.sparc
glibc-devel-2.3.3-99.sparc64
gli
Can anyone point me at a good existing implementation of
GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, suitable for a microcontroller with banked
(segmented) 8 bit registers?
On 4/18/06, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./gcc/xgcc
> -B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/./gcc/
> -B/usr/local/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
> -B/usr/local/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
> /usr/local/sparc64-unknown-linux-gnu/include -isystem
> /
> Does this help?
>
> @@ -13802,9 +13777,8 @@
> s->refcount++;
> /* Avoid unnecessarily putting strings that are used less than
>twice in the hash table. */
> - if (s->refcount == 2
> - || (s->refcount == 1
> - && (DEBUG_STR_SECTION_FLAGS
Kazu Hirata wrote:
Hi Nathan,
Does the VEC API support the following?
typedef unsigned char vec_uchar;
DEF_VEC_I(vec_uchar);
DEF_VEC_ALLOC_I(vec_uchar,gc);
Note that this is GC'ed. When I use this construct in except.c, I get
I think it should be possible to get vec.h to make this work. Th
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 06:14:27AM +, Ivan Novick wrote:
> Is it documented anywhere which gcc features should not be trusted or
> are known to have faults?
The only source of "known to have faults" is the bug database.
However, in any complex piece of software with many options, it simply
i
Just to follow up on this email since I looked into some of the
issues a little more last night.
Andrew Pinski/R&D/SCEA wrote on 04/17/2006 08:21:01 AM:
> I decided to look into the Yara branch to see if it could even be
> bootstrap on PPC (with Yara turned on by default).
>
> I ran into an I
Ok, point taken, and that is very reasonable.
What might be useful is a short article on the gcc web page for users
describing general guidelines regarding which features are generally
highly tested and supported and which are not.
This way you can add many experimental feautres and users wil
Hello,
Recently I looked at the floating point performance of one of our
applications and decided to give the ieeelib software floating point
implementation from torbjorn a try. I integrated ieeelib [1] together
with the patches [2] and [3] found on the list into an gcc-3.4.6
toolchain for a
* Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-29 14:54]:
> > GCC 4.1 itself appears to be very stable, both on MIPS and AMD64.
>
> Thank you for doing this, and for reporting the results, and for filing
> the bugs!
I've done the same with a snapshot of GCC 4.2 now on AMD64 (x86_64),
and I'm curren
Hi,
I tried to cross compile the GCC.I first configured,make and make install
the binutils and newlibc respectively.Then i compiled the GCC for
sparc-linux machine.It worked fine.
Then i am trying to cross-compile for the arm-none-eabi but i am getting
the following error
Configuring in ./libibert
GCC Help,
I am trying to help some developers that are using GCC to develop a linux
application that will run on windows. They would like to link into several
functions in a dll that I provide under windows that provides serial
communication in windows.
My build tools for the windows dll is M
On Apr 18, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Ashit Kumar wrote:
Hi,
I tried to cross compile the GCC.I first configured,make and make
install
the binutils and newlibc respectively.Then i compiled the GCC for
sparc-linux machine.It worked fine.
Then i am trying to cross-compile for the arm-none-eabi but i am
Don't build *in* the source directory. Use two separate build
directories, one for each target.
At this point, you should run "make distclean" to clean up the source
tree before doing anything else.
> "gcc -o myprog myprog.c -L./ -lfoo" I get an error for each one of the
This isn't the right forum for this (try the binutils or cygwin
forums), but try just listing the .dll itself on the gcc command line
(no -L or -l).
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'm going to send two messages to follow up because I think we've got
two different topics. This message is about:
> In any case, the broader question is: to what extent should we have
> experimental options in releases, and how should we warn users of their
> experimental n
I will appreciate your help. Thanks in advance.
Let me give a concrete example of what I want to do (Please understand I
have other reasons to do this after gimplification, though the example shows
that there is a much simpler way to achieve this): in the example, I want
to add a call of inst
On Apr 18, 2006, at 7:28 PM, sean yang wrote:
I will appreciate your help. Thanks in advance.
Let me give a concrete example of what I want to do (Please
understand I have other reasons to do this after gimplification,
though the example shows that there is a much simpler way to
achieve
26 matches
Mail list logo
