On 9/20/06, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I mentioned in passing last night, I'm reviewing the open GCC 4.2 PRs
and catching up on the mailing list traffic today, with the intent of
announcing a GCC 4.2 branch date later today together with thoughts
about staging the GCC 4.3 contrib
Richard Guenther wrote:
The branch date will be no sooner than one week from today, so don't
worry if you don't have time to get me input today. I will revise both
the branch date and 4.3 staging in response to feedback; consider
today's expected mail as a first try.
Do you plan to announce t
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 23:11 -0400, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Reactions?
Change powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu to powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu so that
we also require the 64bit of PowerPC to work.
To be clear, you're suggesting that we say
"powerpc64-unknown-
On Thursday 21 September 2006 05:51, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Paul --
>
> In addition to the Thumb-2 bits, I assume you plan to merge the other
> ARM changes on the branch? Is that correct? (For example, what about
> the NEON bits?)
Good point. I've updated the page to include NEON.
I don't think
With some local changes I've done in the mem-ssa branch I'm getting a
verification
error in execute/20050206-1.c:
foo ()
{
short unsigned int u[1];
# SFT.0_9 = VDEF <.MEM_8(D)>
u[0] = 1;
# SFT.0_10 = VDEF
u[0] = 0;
# u_11 = VDEF <.MEM_8(D)>
u[1] = 1;
# u_12 = VDEF
u[2] =
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 20:21 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>> i386-unknown-freebsd
> Stupid mail client send this before I was finished.
> The last time a freebsd testresult was sent to the list from the
> mainline was in May, maybe that is a sign that we should downgrade it to
> secondary from pr
>
> If retaining primary platform status requires the setup or restart of
> automatic reporting then I suggest that the SC require it for all the
> primary platforms and not just i386-unknown-freebsd. Regardless, I
> will attempt to restart automatic daily reporting for i386-unknown-freebsd.
I a
> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> I know that this is very short notice, but if anyone has input about
Mark> whether or not we are ready to branch, that would be very helpful.
FWIW java is in reasonable shape.
I still want to get the x86 Darwin patches in, but that'
On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
4. Replace powerpc-apple-darwin with i686-apple-darwin. Apple's
hardware switch would seem to make the PowerPC variant less
interesting.
I'd rather just add i686-apple-darwin as a secondary. We don't
instantly replace the entire installed
> I'd rather just add i686-apple-darwin as a secondary. We don't
> instantly replace the entire installed base of machines in the world.
No, but the relevant criteria isn't whether a given machine is *used*,
but whether the people who are using it are likely to want to upgrade to
a new version
Mike Stump wrote:
On Sep 20, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
4. Replace powerpc-apple-darwin with i686-apple-darwin. Apple's
hardware switch would seem to make the PowerPC variant less interesting.
I'd rather just add i686-apple-darwin as a secondary. We don't
instantly replace the e
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Change powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu to powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu so that
>> we also require the 64bit of PowerPC to work.
>
> To be clear, you're suggesting that we say
> "powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu", but mean that both it's 32-b
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:53PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I must admit I've always felt mips-elf to be a less-than-ideal
> replacement for mips-sgi-irix6.5. The former is 32-bit only, while the
> latter includes o32, n32 and n64, giving both 32-bit and 64-bit coverage.
> I fully agree w
I'm glad you asked ;) Although you probably won't be.
I must admit I've always felt mips-elf to be a less-than-ideal
replacement for mips-sgi-irix6.5. The former is 32-bit only, while the
latter includes o32, n32 and n64, giving both 32-bit and 64-bit coverage.
I fully agree with removing mip
Hi,
On 9/16/06, Dorit Nuzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .
so the stuff in tree-ssa-forwprop:eliminate_unnecessary_casts in
autovect-branch is supposed to go under this tree-combiner pass as well, or
do you plan to merge it to mainline some time?
tree-ssa-forwprop:eliminate_unncessary_casts
> 2. Downgrade hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 and powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0 to
> secondary platforms. Update HP-UX to 11.31? Update AIX to 5.3? I like
> having these platforms in the list, in that the differences in object
> models tend to flush out bugs in GCC, but there doesn't seem to be as
> much in
>
> Hi,
>
> On 9/16/06, Dorit Nuzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .
>
> >so the stuff in tree-ssa-forwprop:eliminate_unnecessary_casts in
> > autovect-branch is supposed to go under this tree-combiner pass as well, or
> >do you plan to merge it to mainline some time?
>
>
> tree-ssa-forwprop:eli
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Change powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu to powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu so that
we also require the 64bit of PowerPC to work.
To be clear, you're suggesting that we say
"powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu"
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> The last time a freebsd testresult was sent to the list from the
> mainline was in May, maybe that is a sign that we should downgrade
> it to secondary from primary.
I have been testing GCC head on FreeBSD on a daily base for years, and
am testing the l
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:53PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I take David's point about mips{,el}-linux-gnu being another alternative.
> I suppose mipsisa64-elf has the advantage of being a simulator target
> than anyone can test.
I'm not familiar with the kind of testing you guys usualy d
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060921 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060921/
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
Michel Lespinasse wrote:
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 08:43:53PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I take David's point about mips{,el}-linux-gnu being another alternative.
I suppose mipsisa64-elf has the advantage of being a simulator target
than anyone can test.
I'm not familiar with the ki
Hello All,
We are working on a project to add fixed-point arithmetic support to GCC.
A GCC project description page is available here
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FixedPointArithmetic
and we will create a GCC branch in the near future. If you have
any suggestions or comments, please respond.
Thanks
Andrew,
I've been trying to get a handle on why the line...
frame = (StackFrame *)stack_start;
in gcc/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c only generates the warning...
../../../../gcc-4.2-20060920/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c:76: warning: cast to
pointer from integer of different size
when co
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:06 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Andrew,
> I've been trying to get a handle on why the line...
>
> frame = (StackFrame *)stack_start;
>
> in gcc/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c only generates the warning...
>
> ../../../../gcc-4.2-20060920/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.
On 22 September 2006 04:06, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I've been trying to get a handle on why the line...
>
> frame = (StackFrame *)stack_start;
>
> in gcc/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c only generates the warning...
>
> ../../../../gcc-4.2-20060920/boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c:76: warning: c
Peter,
Wouldn't we want something like...
Index: darwin_stop_world.c
===
--- darwin_stop_world.c (revision 117133)
+++ darwin_stop_world.c (working copy)
@@ -61,7 +61,11 @@ typedef struct StackFrame {
unsigned longsaved
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:54 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Peter,
> Wouldn't we want something like...
>
> +#ifdef __powerpc64__
> +unsigned long FindTopOfStack(unsigned long stack_start) {
> +#else
> unsigned long FindTopOfStack(unsigned int stack_start) {
> +#endif
Why have the #ifdef? Why
On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:54 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> We have
> the same issue in gcc-4.2-20060915/libffi/src/powerpc/ffi_darwin.c
> (which might explain why it fails so many tests at -m64).
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00277.html
For this thread, you have:
*next_arg++ = (uns
Hi all,
I am upgrading a cross-compiler from gcc3.4.6 to gcc 4.1.1. i am
getting some errors while trying to build the compiler.
The way in which i am building the compiler is :
$configure --target= --prefix=/usr/crossgcc/ --with-newlib --disable-libssp
i am getting the following errors!!
/ho
On tor, 2006-09-21 at 23:10 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 23:54 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Peter,
> > Wouldn't we want something like...
>
> >
> > +#ifdef __powerpc64__
> > +unsigned long FindTopOfStack(unsigned long stack_start) {
> > +#else
> > unsigned long FindT
31 matches
Mail list logo
