On 23/06/06, Laurynas Biveinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still waiting for the testsuite to complete (it's been running
just for about 24 hours so far). In the meanwhile I'd like to discuss
the first performance results, which I've put on the Wiki:
First number is GCC with Boehm's GC and th
On Jun 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I can reproduce this, something is miscompiling cc1plus.
If I revert:
2006-06-23 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ggc-page.c (init_ggc): Do not round up the
extra_order_size_table
sizes to MAX_ALIGNMENT. Fix the si
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jun 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> >I can reproduce this, something is miscompiling cc1plus.
>
> If I revert:
> 2006-06-23 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>* ggc-page.c (init_ggc): Do not round up the extra_order
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> pass? What is MAX_ALIGNMENT on ppc-darwin? It's defined as
>
> struct max_alignment {
> char c;
> union {
> HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
> long double d;
> } u;
> };
>
> /* The biggest alignment required. */
>
> #define M
On Jun 25, 2006, at 11:12 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I learned while working on the zone collector that there is at least
one platform where this doesn't work, because "long double" had an
alignment of eight on its own and four as a structure field. It might
have been powerpc-darwin.
Maybe
2006/6/25, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> combine.c: top mem usage: 52180k (13915k). GC execution time 0.66
> (0.61) 4% (4%). User running time: 0m16 (0m14).
>
How are you collecting top mem usage?
Sorry, that's not the top mem usage, but rather peak GC allocated
bytes. Determining them
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 11:19:45AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Maybe the struct should be rewritten like:
> >struct max_alignment {
> > char c;
> > union {
> >long double d;
> >HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
> > } u;
> >};
>
> To make sure the long double was first which is usually the cures the
On 6/25/06, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 07:59:14PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> pass? What is MAX_ALIGNMENT on ppc-darwin? It's defined as
>
> struct max_alignment {
> char c;
> union {
> HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
> long double d;
> } u;
> };
> It would be nice if you can track down this some more, as I do not
> have access to ppc-darwin.
And to SPARC/Solaris 32-bit? :-)
/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/build/eric/gcc/./gcc/
-B/opt/build/eric/local/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.7/bin/
-B/opt/build/eric/local/gcc/sparc-sun-solaris2.7/l
On 6/25/06, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be nice if you can track down this some more, as I do not
> have access to ppc-darwin.
And to SPARC/Solaris 32-bit? :-)
No ;) But I verified that i386-apple-darwin still works. Also ppc-aix still
works.
/opt/build/eric/gcc/./g
> At least this one looks "easier" to look at. Is SPARC/Solaris a
> strict alignment target?
Yes, all SPARC targets are.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > At least this one looks "easier" to look at. Is SPARC/Solaris a
> > strict alignment target?
>
> Yes, all SPARC targets are.
So, something obviously wrong with
struct max_alignment {
char c;
union {
HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
long double d;
} u;
}
> So, something obviously wrong with
>
> struct max_alignment {
> char c;
> union {
>HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
>long double d;
> } u;
> };
>
> /* The biggest alignment required. */
>
> #define MAX_ALIGNMENT (offsetof (struct max_alignment, u))
>
> for SPARC 32bit?
I don't think so, the ABI sa
> From: Ranjit Mathew
> Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2006 1:28 PM
> Danny Smith wrote:
> > Adding a real __cxa_atexit to mingw runtime is of course also
> > possible, but I thought I'd attempt the easy options first.
>
> When you say "runtime", do you mean libstdc++ or something like
> libmingwex.a in
Hello,
As the title says, how can I remove articles posted
under my name "Alexander Verhaeghe" or e-mailaddress
"alexanderverhaeghe at yahoo dot com"
When I do a search in http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html I
get 8 results which I would like to have removed,
espcially when they popup in the searchengi
On Sun, 25 Jun 2006, Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
> As the title says, how can I remove articles posted
> under my name "Alexander Verhaeghe" or e-mailaddress
> "alexanderverhaeghe at yahoo dot com"
You can't.
And by shot-gunning your request to
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
gcc@g
On 6/26/06, Alexander Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As the title says, how can I remove articles posted
under my name "Alexander Verhaeghe" or e-mailaddress
"alexanderverhaeghe at yahoo dot com"
You can not.
And it would not be very useful either, because all the lists you sent
mail to
On 25/06/06, Laurynas Biveinis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2006/6/25, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > combine.c: top mem usage: 52180k (13915k). GC execution time 0.66
> > (0.61) 4% (4%). User running time: 0m16 (0m14).
> >
>
> How are you collecting top mem usage?
Sorry, that's not the t
[ cutting down the CC list ]
Alexander Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Mon, 26 Jun 2006:
As the title says, how can I remove articles posted
under my name "Alexander Verhaeghe" or e-mailaddress
"alexanderverhaeghe at yahoo dot com"
When I do a search in http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html I
g
"Free as in Freedom" in
http://www.gnu.org/home.html#ContactInfo
You're not even able to remove a couple of messages,
so how "free" am I now?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted $300 for removal!
How "free" am I now? You should be ashamed of
yourselves!
Not only privacy is not respected, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a
I have a situation (on Linux or Solaris, at least), in which I install
versions of GCC in non-standard directories (specifically, directories not
owned & operated by root). With such an installation, when a GCC link
finds a definition of an external reference in a shared library that is
part of t
On Sun, 2006-06-25 16:44:22 -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Not only privacy is not respected, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> also threatened that more hits would be generated in
> the archives, [EMAIL PROTECTED] shouldn't do that,
> it's against privacy in case you didn't realize!
T
Quote Jan-Benedict Glaw "So please shut up now."
Quite friendly I must say, it's the german way I
suppose of handling things?
To Jan-Benedict Glaw I WON'T SHUT UP because of "Free
as in Freedom"!
--- Jan-Benedict Glaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-06-25 16:44:22 -0700, Alexander
> V
Danny Smith wrote:
> is a good thing: replace an ISO standard-conformant and perfectly
> adequate atexit function already supplied by OS vendor with a new
> version, perhaps with some licensing strings attached. I expect the
> fake cxa_atexit hack I illustrated earlier would meet less resistance
Always threatening, you're even worse than
Microsoft...
Once again "Free as in Freedom", how dare you to use
this? Please don't forget to mention that you want to
rip me off $300!
--- Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
> > Quote Jan-Benedict Glaw "So please shut
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:02:41PM -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
>Quote Jan-Benedict Glaw "So please shut up now."
>
>Quite friendly I must say, it's the german way I suppose of handling
>things?
>
>To Jan-Benedict Glaw I WON'T SHUT UP because of "Free as in Freedom"!
However, you have been to
On Sun, 2006-06-25 17:02:41 -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> To Jan-Benedict Glaw I WON'T SHUT UP because of "Free
> as in Freedom"!
Ah, so your understanding of "Freedom" reads like:
Okay guys, I've sent out some rude emails insulting you a bit about
your fortran st
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:16:37PM -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
> Always threatening, you're even worse than
> Microsoft...
> Once again "Free as in Freedom", how dare you to use
> this? Please don't forget to mention that you want to
> rip me off $300!
>
Alexander the email you requested re
"It is of course not a threat to point out that
anything you post here will be permanently
associated with your name for ever, and that
there is no way to undo this. This is just a
statement of fact."
There is always a way of undoing things, it's simply a
matter if you want to do so or not, and in
Please tell me where I can read this "spat of
postings" so that I can evaluate them. I guess I have
to change emailaddress (not difficult) and name (more
difficult) after this stuff. I never typed so much in
a short time!
--- Steve Kargl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:16:
Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
Always threatening, you're even worse than
Microsoft...
Once again "Free as in Freedom", how dare you to use
this? Please don't forget to mention that you want to
rip me off $300!
First of all, again you are quoting my private
messages.
Second, the $300 has nothing t
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:43:41PM -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe wrote:
> Please tell me where I can read this "spat of
> postings" so that I can evaluate them. I guess I have
> to change emailaddress (not difficult) and name (more
> difficult) after this stuff. I never typed so much in
> a short time
I thought I should point out that this thread has hit the "too many recipients"
spam blocking rule at gcc.gnu.org so there are a number of messages from various
people (but mostly from Alexander) which are not making it to the mailing list.
cgf
On 6/25/06, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, something obviously wrong with
>
> struct max_alignment {
> char c;
> union {
>HOST_WIDEST_INT i;
>long double d;
> } u;
> };
>
> /* The biggest alignment required. */
>
> #define MAX_ALIGNMENT (offsetof (struct max_alignment,
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 07:47:52PM -0400, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
>
> I have a situation (on Linux or Solaris, at least), in which I
> install versions of GCC in non-standard directories (specifically,
> directories not owned & operated by root). With such an
> installation, when a GCC link finds a
35 matches
Mail list logo
