On 5/16/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Mark,
>
>> Therefore, effective midnight tonight (i.e., 12:00AM May 17th in
>> California), the 4.1 branch will be frozen. (I previously announced May
>> 15th as a target release date.) After that point, all changes,
>>
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'll pre-approve that change, but I'll also defer to any other
>> maintainer who has a solution they prefer.
>
> How about this one?
>
> 2006-05-15 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * crtstuff.c (__dso_handle): Set section from
> TARGET_LBIG
Hello ,
I am currently extending the existing C front-end of GCC 4.1. Basically,
I add new keywords into the set of the C language. I have already done a
big part of the lexical and syntax analysis of each new keywords. I work
on the files "c-common.h", "c-parser.c", "c-tree.h", "c-decl.c",
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:09, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> The constant pool placement that sh_reorg does has somewhat hapazard
> results. It does not take execution frequencies into account, so if
> you are unlucky, you can end up with a constant table wedged into some
> hoit spot of the code, which
hello,
I got a serious problem with my linux system( specifications bellow)
, In fact I can't launch C programs compiled with gcc. this is what I
got when trying to do so :
~/wormux-0.7.1 $ /bin/bash ./configure
checking build system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking host system type...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there
is basic block profiling being dropped out from recent GCCs (i mean
compiling with "-g -pg -a")?
If it is still supported in any of the GCC development branches please
let me know.
thanks in advance
Nikolaos Kavvadias
-BEGIN PGP SIGNA
On 16 May 2006 12:12, Mohamed Boukaa wrote:
> checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
> checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C
> compiled programs.
> If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
> See `config.log' for more details.
>
> --->Also
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Yes, the problem on Thumb-1 is the same in almost all respects:
I had Joern's mail in my reply-to queue, and was going to say basically
the same things as Richard, so I'll just echo the fact that I'd like to
see some generic infrastructure built.
> With the Thumb code t
On 16 May 2006 15:15, Mohamed Boukaa wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> On 16 May 2006 12:12, Mohamed Boukaa wrote:
>>
>>> checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
>>> checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C
>>> compiled programs. If you meant to cros
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~#gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: alphaev68-dec-osf5.1b
Configured with: ../configure
--host=alphaev68-dec-osf5.1b --enable-threads=posix
--enable-languages=c,c++,f95,objc,java,treelang --prefix=/usr/local
--enable-version-specific-runtime-libs
--enable-shared --enable-lib
I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
(x86 with checking enabled)
libbackend.a(print-rtl.o): In function `print_decl_name':
/src/gcc/2006-05-16/gcc/gcc/print-rtl.c:73: multiple definition of
`flag_dump_unnumbered'
libbackend.a(options.o):(.bss+0x1ac): first defined h
On May 16, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I wonder now if I should keep this as SH-specific code, or does it
make
sense to write this a bit more generic - i.e. a variable number of
constant ranges, configurable size of small cold blocks, and the
range
of branches selectable - a
On May 16, 2006, at 5:08 AM, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
is basic block profiling being dropped out
Please use gcov instead. No, gcov isn't going away.
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
>
> (x86 with checking enabled)
>
> libbackend.a(print-rtl.o): In function `print_decl_name':
> /src/gcc/2006-05-16/gcc/gcc/print-rtl.c:73: multiple definition of
> `flag
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:08:52PM +0300, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
> is basic block profiling being dropped out from recent GCCs (i mean
> compiling with "-g -pg -a")?
> If it is still supported in any of the GCC development branches please
> let me know.
Support for -a was dropped in GCC 3.1 Ba
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
> >
> > (x86 with checking enabled)
> >
> > libbackend.a(print-rtl.o): In function `print_decl_name':
>
On May 16, 2006, at 10:20 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
(x86 with checking enabled)
libbackend.a(print-rtl.o): In
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:23:37AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2006, at 10:20 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> >>>I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 10:20 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:49:13PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 11:50 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > > I *just* checked out mainline, and it is failing to build like so:
> > >
> > > (x86 with checking enabled)
> >
>
On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
No it is not added by hand. It is used when checking is turned on.
Now I see you did not have checking on which is wrong
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 16, 2006, at 5:08 AM, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
>
>> is basic block profiling being dropped out
>
>
> Please use gcov instead. No, gcov isn't going away.
>
>
Thank you Mike and Janis for your responses.
I'll have a look at
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> >
> >I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
> >in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
>
> No it is not added by hand. It is used wh
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
> > >in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
> >
> > No it is not added by
On May 16, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote:
Do you know if when building the gcc for cross (different) target
(e.g. sparc-elf-gcc) the gcov does get built as well?
It should.
I mean my intention is to use gcov for a cross target on a simulation
environment based on SystemC (http:
>
> >
> > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > >
> > > On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
> > > >in my build logs on Linux/x86, Linux/x86-64 and Linux/ia64.
> > >
> >
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:08:13PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On May 16, 2006, at 10:39 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >I assume that -fno-common is added by hand since I didn't see it
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
Tom> it is acceptable? It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
Tom> long the discussion might take.
Ping. Any progress to report?
Since I still think this i
> > What do people who build in a combined tree do with intl? Do they use
> > the GCC version or the src tree version? Is there any consensus about
> > whether or not there should be a single version of intl, and if so,
> > which one should be used?
>
> Yes, there should be a single version of i
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 03:36:22PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Can someone tell me about this automatic merge? I was going to submit a
> formal patch to change the contents of src/intl but it seems that if we
> have an automatic merge to copy libiberty from gcc to src, we could do
> the same for
> Who maintains this automatic merge process?
Me. I have a cron job that checks out gcc's and src's libiberty and
include, compares them, copies any differing files to src, and sends
me email. I then run a "do it" script to do the actual commit.
There's not much advantage in using this setup f
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:28:50PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Tom> So, could the SC please discuss the ecj plan and let us know whether
> Tom> it is acceptable? It would also be helpful to have some idea of how
> Tom> long the discussion might take.
>
> Ping. Any progress to report?
I answered
DJ Delorie wrote:
Who maintains this automatic merge process?
Me. I have a cron job that checks out gcc's and src's libiberty and
include, compares them, copies any differing files to src, and sends
me email. I then run a "do it" script to do the actual commit.
There's not much advantag
> Was there not a way to combine the two (gcc and src) via console commands?
We're not talking about combining source trees for a build, we're
talking about making sure both source trees happen to have the same
sources in them to start with.
> > Who maintains this automatic merge process?
>
> The man to ask about this is DJ Delorie. I'm not sure how much work it
> is on his part, though.
>
> Either way it would probably be best to do the initial sync by hand.
> And is it really plausible that nothing in src would need updating for
>
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 04:06:29PM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I'm sure something might need updating after this change and I am
> willing to try and fix anything I break, but I am not sure what other
> testing I can do with the platforms I have available. Do you have any
> suggestions as to what
Ping? I think this fixes a current bootstrap problem. Looks safe
and reasonable to me.
On May 16, 2006, at 1:09 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Here is a patch to compile gcc-options.o from options.c.
2006-05-16 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.in (GCC_OBJS): Replace options.o with g
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom> Since I still think this is the best way forward, I started work on
Tom> it. I've got a prototype working here.
Tom> I'd like to commit it to a branch on gcc.gnu.org. But, I don't want
Tom> to offend the SC any more than I have to ;-).
Dear gcc and/or apple OS X 7.9 users:
Union-Souths-Computer:~/gcc-5250 UnionSouth$ cat config.log
This file contains any messages produced by compilers while
running configure, to aid debugging if configure makes a mistake.
configure:595: checking host system type
configure:616: checking target s
Hi,
I am building the cross-toolchain for mipsel on x86 redhat pc.
Now I can build the gcc for c using following configuration.
./configure --prefix=/opt/xuelian-toolchain/mipsel-linux-glibc
--target=mipsel-linux --enable-shared --enable-threads --enable-languages=c
--with-headers=/opt/xuelia
H. J. Lu wrote:
> 2006-05-16 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makefile.in (GCC_OBJS): Replace options.o with gcc-options.o.
> (gcc-options.o): New rule.
>
> * optc-gen.awk: Protect variables for gcc-options.o with
> #ifdef GCC_DRIVER/#endif.
OK.
--
Mark Mitchell
Cod
>
> Ping? I think this fixes a current bootstrap problem. Looks safe
> and reasonable to me.
It was already APPROVED in the bug report about the orginal issue.
Mike, next time please look at what is going on before replying.
-- Pinski
I've been using Google Talk and thought you might like to try it out.
We can use it to call each other for free over the internet. Here's an
invitation to download Google Talk. Give it a try!
---
wang mingxin wants to stay in be
42 matches
Mail list logo
