On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 03:43, Mike Stump wrote:
> Mine was designed to do two things, figure out if the results are
> interesting and not send email, if they are not, and to show
> engineers the `interesting' detailed results in priority order. It's
> meant to be run daily, and on good days,
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
...
I am agree with this. Two months ago Maxim submitted patches which
affects only ia64 except one thing affecting all targets - the patch
which builds more scheduling regions and as consequence permits more
aggressive interblock scheduling.
Insn scheduling before
I get the following failure while building gcc 4.2 on hppa:
checking for pid_t... no
checking for library containing strerror... configure: error: Link tests are
not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
make[3]: *** [configure-target-libiberty] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/build/buildd/gcc-s
Martin Michlmayr writes:
> I get the following failure while building gcc 4.2 on hppa:
>
> checking for pid_t... no
> checking for library containing strerror... configure: error: Link tests are
> not allowed after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES.
> make[3]: *** [configure-target-libiberty] Error 1
> make[3]:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
...
Not even a single comment - shame on you both! :-) If this is the
solution we choose, can we make sure that there's at least a comment
explaining what's going on?
Totally agree. That was an *example patch*. Here is a bit updated, but
still an example of how we
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:49:35PM +0200, Wolfgang Mües wrote:
> > (define_insn "*arm_movqi_insn"
> > [(set (match_operand:QI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=r,r,r,Q")
> > (match_operand:QI 1 "general_operand" "rI,K,m,+r"))]
> > "TARGET_ARM
> >&& ( register_operand (operands[0], QImode)
>
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The only problem I have with Mike's script is that it doesn't handle
runs with multiple multi-lib variants nicely.
Yeah, in the past, we drove the multilib pass from above as in
general we had to select different hardware for testing. I lik
I can't explain myself what is going on within this lines in
the .debug_frame section.
Context: AMD64 linux64 system. (Ubuntu)
Within the debug_frame section I find the following assembly instructions:
.byte0x4
.long.LCFI0-.LFB2
The distance between labels LCFI0 and LFB2 is exactl
Hi,
My attempts to build 4.1.1 on Solaris 8 and HP-UX 11 fail in
fastjar because it seems that the logic to deal with an out-of-date
makeinfo is borked.
We get
WARNING: `makeinfo' is missing on your system. You should only need it if
you modified a `.texi' or `.texinfo' file, or any ot
Hi!
Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to link
(and run) C code compiled with a powerpc-eabi targeted
gcc with C code compiled with a powerpc-linux targeted
gcc? The resulting program would be run on a PowerPC
Linux system (ELDK 4.0).
In this case, main() would be compiled by
powerpc-l
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Mark Shinwell wrote:
As for the remaining problem, I suggest that we could:
(i) always return the hard frame pointer, and disable FP elimination in
the current function; or
(iii) ...the same as option (i), but allow targets to define another macro
that will cause the defau
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:58:31AM +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:37:51PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote:
>>> And I forgot to ask: who the heck is supposed to set USE_MINGW_MSYS?
>>> (grep is soo
My understanding is that: both are used to traverse BBs and the only
(potential )difference is the order of the traversal. 'FOR_EACH_BB'
traverses BBs throught the linked list order; 'for (i=0; ii++){bb=BASIC_BLOCK(i);}' traverses accoring to the BB's index (because
BASIC_BLOCK(i)->index ==i)
> The call from Linux-land to eabi-land would not need
> to pass arguments nor return anything and nothing
> would need to be shared between the two pieces of
> code.
So basically you can replace the whole thing with sleep(1); and noone would be
any the wiser.
Paul
sean yang wrote on 06/01/06 14:44:
> 'for (i=0; i the
> BB's index (because BASIC_BLOCK(i)->index ==i)
>
The first form may take you to a NULL basic block. See expunge_block.
On 6/1/06, sean yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding is that: both are used to traverse BBs and the only
(potential )difference is the order of the traversal. 'FOR_EACH_BB'
traverses BBs throught the linked list order; 'for (i=0; iindex ==i)
(Please correct me if my understanding is
I guess I should have also mentioned that the
resultant program will be run under gdb, with a script
setting breakpoints, running, examining variables,
etc.
--- Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The call from Linux-land to eabi-land would not
> need
> > to pass arguments nor return anythi
Thanks. after reading expunge_block(), i am curious whether " 'for (i=0;
i'compute_defs_uses_and_gen()' uses it, it should work; from the other hand,
from the code of expunge_block, BASIC_BLOCK[n_basic_blocks-1] may not be the
last element in the BASIC_BLOCK array.
For example,
BASIC_BLOCK is l
> Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
> known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do on)... I
> think having a few different styles would be good, then people can
> try them all out and see which ones they like and why. Anyway, for
> me, it isn't
Whoops... I forgot to attach my fixes, for anyone that's interested.
--
Jim Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orillia, Ontario
--- dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/05/31 19:22:14 1.18
+++ dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/06/01 17:53:21
@@ -31,6 +31,16 @@ if test $# -ne 3 -o ! -f "$2" -o ! -f "$
exit 1
fi
+# Comman
sean yang wrote on 06/01/06 15:28:
> Thanks. after reading expunge_block(), i am curious whether " 'for (i=0;
> i
That was my point: it doesn't, unless you can guarantee that the CFG has
been compacted.
> Your approach is faster, esp. on Darwin / NetBSD.
> The only advantages I see to mine is handling variants (Richard's patch
> fixes that), verbosity control, and detail -- compare_tests only looks
> at X?(PASS|FAIL).
Hmm.. another small point, FWIW.
Both the results files I used contained the f
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, James Lemke wrote:
> Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> results:
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test
> > Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> > results:
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g
On Sun, 14 May 2006, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> Dave Yost points out that a cursory look at the main table
> in:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
>
> (which is linked-to from the main page) gives the impression
> that 3.4.6 has been our last release. It is very easy to
> miss the fine-print-l
On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:43:09PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> In the eyes of at least some, especially the dates for the old
> releases in releases.html are of historical interest, so I'd be
> quite hesitant to remove these.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that it is easy to miss the statement on
>
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060601 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060601/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Jun 1, 2006, at 11:32 AM, Ron McCall wrote:
Does anyone happen to know if it is possible to link
(and run) C code compiled with a powerpc-eabi targeted
gcc with C code compiled with a powerpc-linux targeted
gcc?
This is a linker question, we don't do linkers here. In particular,
the reloc
Mark Shinwell wrote:
Option (i), which is in all but name the "solution 5" approach [1] proposed
last year, means that the "count == 0" case is elevated to the same level
of importance as the "count > 0" cases, in line with the use in
backtrace (). The problem with this is that on platforms wher
Geoff,
When building xplor with -shared-libgcc -whyload, I don't see any
explicit symbols being loaded from libgcc_s. However from
libxplorCmd.dylib, which has code called from xplor, I see...
/usr/lib/libgcc_s.1.dylib(unwind-dw2_s.o) loaded to resolve symbol:
__Unwind_Resume
/usr/lib/libgcc
Remy Saissy wrote:
I've looked for a target specific callback to modify but I've found
nothing, even in the gcc internals info pages. Do you mean I would
have to modify some code outside of the i386 directory ? Or maybe to
add such a callback if it doesn't exist ;)
You'ld have to modify code i
I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains the
libiberty library. Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole
new compiler? I am running 3.4.6 and what to cross compile for a pdp-11. I
just want to compile the extra support and that's all.
Bill
> I haven't found anything in the docs that I see that explains
> the libiberty library.
You didn't find the libiberty documentation? It's separate from the
gcc documentation, but available on the gcc docs web page.
> Can this be compiled without having to compile a whole new compiler?
Er,
- Original Message -
From: "DJ Delorie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: Libiberty
>
> Please don't reply to me personally, use the mailing list.
Sorry I just pressed reply. You personal address must have been there.
Bill
Rask,
On Thursday 01 June 2006 16:13, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> I think you will need to remove the '+' as already suggested and add
> (clobber (match_scratch:QI "=X,X,X,1")) to tell GCC that the register
> allocated to operand 1 is clobbered by the instruction for this
> particular altern
35 matches
Mail list logo
