Re: identifying a BB representing a self-loop

2006-05-21 Thread Zdenek Dvorak
Hello, > >> If we compile this by "#gcc -c -O -da demo.c, we can see there are only > >> three BBs. Actually, BB1 is a self-looped basic block. But this loop > >> information is not explicitly expressed. > >> > > > >What do you mean "not explicitly expressed". > > > >If you call the loop finding r

Re: Segment registers support for i386

2006-05-21 Thread Rémy Saissy
Hi people, I added an attribute "far" for the i386, this attribute takes one argument, the segment register. This attribute is intended to be use with pointers. There is something I'm not sure about Once the attribute handler has returned NULL_TREE without setting no_add_attr to true, the atribute

i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 and GCC-4.2-ss has bugs!

2006-05-21 Thread Anny Blackyew
i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 and GCC-4.2-ss has bugs! i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 has the sharp symbol '#': "f#x,x#f", "f#x,xm#f", "f#rx,..#fx,..#rf", ... i386.md from GCC-4.2-ss has corrected it and has not the sharp symbol '#': "f,x", "f,xm", ... What is the meaning of repeated words in i386.md?

Re: GCC 4.1.1 RC1

2006-05-21 Thread Bernhard Fischer
Hi, [sorry for breaking the threading, not subscribed..] gcc-4_1-branch will fail in the install target on systems where makeinfo is too old -- or missing. See http://gcc.gnu.org/PR27516 for details and a patch which is still awaiting approval for both trunk and 4.1 Please fix this before releas

Re: i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 and GCC-4.2-ss has bugs!

2006-05-21 Thread Andrew Pinski
On May 21, 2006, at 7:30 AM, Anny Blackyew wrote: i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 and GCC-4.2-ss has bugs! i386.md from GCC-4.1.1-RC1 has the sharp symbol '#': "f#x,x#f", "f#x,xm#f", "f#rx,..#fx,..#rf", ... i386.md from GCC-4.2-ss has corrected it and has not the sharp symbol '#': "f,x", "f,xm

Gcc 4.2 now passes SPEC CPU 2006

2006-05-21 Thread H. J. Lu
With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592 Gcc 4.2 revision 113936 now passes SPEC CPU 2006 on Linux/x86, Linux/x86 and Linux/ia64. But I have to apply 3 patches to SPEC sources. H.J.

SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Bruce Korb
CF: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00950.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00951.html Since Google did not yield an answer, I'm re-asking the question, though with a slightly different file. Help, please, from anybody knowing how to work around the issue. Thank you! - Bruce $

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Florian Weimer
* Bruce Korb: > CF: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00950.html >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00951.html > > Since Google did not yield an answer, I'm re-asking the question, > though with a slightly different file. Help, please, from anybody > knowing how to work around the issue

Re: Segment registers support for i386

2006-05-21 Thread Ross Ridge
Remy Saissy wrote: >I don't really understand how to access the attribute set up in the >tree in the rtx struct. You won't be able to. You're going to need to write your own code that, during the conversion of the tree to RTL, creates RTL expressions which indicate that the memory references use

Re: Gcc 4.2 now passes SPEC CPU 2006

2006-05-21 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 5/21/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: With the patch in http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592 Gcc 4.2 revision 113936 now passes SPEC CPU 2006 on Linux/x86, Linux/x86 and Linux/ia64. But I have to apply 3 patches to SPEC sources. Good news. Do those patches fix real SPE

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Daniel Berlin
Bruce Korb wrote: > CF: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00950.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00951.html > > Since Google did not yield an answer, I'm re-asking the question, > though with a slightly different file. Help, please, from anybody > knowing how to work around the

Re: Gcc 4.2 now passes SPEC CPU 2006

2006-05-21 Thread H. J. Lu
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:43:41PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On 5/21/06, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >With the patch in > > > >http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27592 > > > >Gcc 4.2 revision 113936 now passes SPEC CPU 2006 on Linux/x86, > >Linux/x86 and Linux/ia64. But I h

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Philip Martin
Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >-- declaration. It Is important that all references to the type point to The capital 'I' in 'Is' looks wrong. $ svn cat -r108304 svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb > foo $ md5sum foo bf7be49fb4a377ca037b7c6fe02b1d5a foo $ sed 's/is i

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Bruce Korb
Philip Martin wrote: Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: -- declaration. It Is important that all references to the type point to The capital 'I' in 'Is' looks wrong. $ svn cat -r108304 svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/ada/sem_ch8.adb > foo $ md5sum foo bf7be49fb4a377ca037b7c6fe02

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

2006-05-21 Thread Bob Proulx
Bruce Korb wrote: > Philip Martin wrote: > >The capital 'I' in 'Is' looks wrong. > ... > That's what I wanted: a nice, simple answer that was short of re-pulling > the entire repository. ``delete the entire ada sub-dir from the > working copy and update will download it again.'' Thank you! > (I

Re: Revert patch for MIPS TImode functions for 4.1.1

2006-05-21 Thread Roger Sayle
On Fri, 19 May 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I'm evaluating the options. It would be helpful if someone has time to > apply and test Richard's patch on 4.1, as that would let us know whether > that option is viable as well. I've bootstrapped and regression tested a backport of Richard's patch aga