-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 02:45:50PM -0700, Gary Funck wrote:
> Beginning with this simple example,
>
> 1 int j;
> 2 volatile int jv;
> 3 void p()
> 4 {
> 5++j;
> 6++jv;
> 7 }
>
> when compiled with "gcc
> In the same vein as my 20050418 patch, may be the following will help.
> Tested on x86_64-linux.
Looks reasonable to me. Of course it would be nice if the underlying bug
were fixed at some point, but that's another issue.
> 2005-05-15 Laurent GUERBY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * ada/acats/
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 09:46:24AM +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
No, this patch is not correct. Take a wander through set_std_prefix
and the call to update_path in add_prefix.
Here's another attempt at a patch which fixes the problem for me,
including the translati
Hi GCC_HELP,
We recently started porting a C++ project from gcc-3.2.1 to gcc-4.0.1. We
initially ran into several problems. The code that compiled easily with
gcc-3.2.1 would not compile with gcc-4.0.1.
Later we found that code compiled till gcc-3.3.6 version, but since the
gcc-3.4.0 version the
Hi all,
The following regression appeared between 20060504 and 20060505 on
i686-linux. It is filed as PR 27443,and appears to be a consequence of
a new optimization pass introduced by revision 113518.
FAIL: gfortran.fortran-torture/execute/entry_3.f90 compilation, -O3
-fomit-frame-pointer
FAIL
Hi everyone,
My apologies for posting off topic. I'm desperate.
One of my project's general on-going tasks is to eliminate dead code. Sort
of following the Extreme Programming principle.
Does anyone know of any tool that can help identify fallow routines?
Can GCC itself help facilitate findin
Sorry, I didn¹t mean to cross post my off-topic post to this forum. I meant
it to go to gcc-help only.
Mea culpa,
--Eljay
Hi,
I'm trying to learn about GCC's support for vector arithmetic and found
the section "Using vector instructions through built-in functions", which
answers a lot of questions, but unfortunately does not address things
like gathering scalar values into a vector type or reading scalars
out of suc
> From: Bernd Jendrissek
> Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 12:50 AM
[...]
> Systems programmers should know better than to expect a particular
> implementation of volatile. :)
>
> How, for example, would you suggest GCC generate code for this?
>
> volatile int qwerty;
>
> void p()
> {
> printf("q
> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> these architectures.
Agree. I will check the bootstrapping on x86. (a) see
While following GCC's handling of 'volatile' and other type
qualifiers, I noticed that the gimplify pass created temporaries
with a type with 'volatile' asserted if the underlying type also
had 'volatile' asserted.
Temporaries are created by the create_tmp_var_raw() procedure
in gimplify.c, which
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The following regression appeared between 20060504 and 20060505 on
> i686-linux. It is filed as PR 27443,and appears to be a consequence of
> a new optimization pass introduced by revision 11
On 5/5/06, Mircea Namolaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> these architectures
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mircea Namolaru wrote:
>> That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
>> anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
>> cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
>> t
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:18:37PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > export BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" CXXFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" FCFLAGS="-g -O2
> > -fsee" GCJFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" SYSROOT_CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET="-g -O2 -fsee"
> > # /configure
> > # make BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O2 -fsee" C
Hi Mircea,
On Fri, 5 May 2006, Mircea Namolaru wrote:
> > That certainly does suggest a bug in the SEE patches. They needn't do
> > anything useful on IA32/AMD64, but they should presumably either (a) not
> > cause a bootstrap failure on these architectures, or (b) be disabled on
> > these archi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being applied?
FX
Given,
1 volatile int jv;
2
3 int main ()
4 {
5++jv;
6 }
GCC (development branch, 4.0 and up) creates a tree
node for the expression ++jv that has 'volatile' asserted
in the type associated with the expression:
unit size
align 32 symtab 0
On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being
applied?
No, it was regression tested, just not on x86-linux-gnu like most
people is
doing.
-- Pinski
On 5/5/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
>
> Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being
> applied?
No, it was regression tested, just not on x86-li
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 05:28:14PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> >
> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
> >>
> >> Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't
Any suggestions, pointers or recommendations for tools, tips and/or
techniques would be appreciated.
A couple of different ways come to mind:
a) there's the binutils -ffunction-sections -Wl,-gc-sections approach
where every function is put into it's own section and the total is
then garbag
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20060505 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20060505/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 06:20:19AM -0500, John Love-Jensen wrote:
> One of my project's general on-going tasks is to eliminate dead code.
> Sort of following the Extreme Programming principle.
If you're doing XP then you also have a test suite that co
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 04:29:53AM -0700, Gary Funck wrote:
> ... where, when incrmenting the non-volatile 'j', it chosses 'addl'
> over 'incl'.
Pentium 4 is stupid that way; addl is faster.
r~
25 matches
Mail list logo
