Re: GCC 4.2 branch created; mainline open in Stage 1

On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 08:41:37PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I have created the GCC 4.2 branch. I don't understand yet how the next steps for 4.2 will look like; will there be further snapshots (ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/) of the 4.2 branch, or will the next snapshots be only for 4.3

Re: gmp and mpfr in infrastructure

On 2006-10-23 10:48:18 +0200, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > I've found the GMP website to be quite unresponsive. FYI, the problem seems to be a router that is incompatible with Linux. So, as a workaround, either use another OS (no problem under Mac OS X) or change the TCP window scaling[*] if you can.

Error in documentation..

Hallo, We found an error at http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Option-Summary.html#Option-Summary In compiler options for HPPA you say "-threads". Our self-build 4.1.1 only answers to the -pthread option, though. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Augsburg / Best regards from Augsburg

Re: gmp and mpfr in infrastructure

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2006-10-23 10:48:18 +0200, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > I've found the GMP website to be quite unresponsive. > > FYI, the problem seems to be a router that is incompatible with Linux. > So, as a workaround, either use another OS (no problem under Mac

Re: gmp and mpfr in infrastructure

On 2006-10-24 12:27:39 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2006-10-23 10:48:18 +0200, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > I've found the GMP website to be quite unresponsive. > > FYI, the problem seems to be a router that is incompatible with Linux. > So, as a workaround, either use another OS (no problem u

Abt -fpic, -fPIC Option

Hi, I have built a cross-compiler for m68k-elf with GCC 4.1.1. I need to know the difference in implementations of -fpic and -fPIC for this particular target. can anyone help me out? Thanking you in advance, Rohit

Re: Abt -fpic, -fPIC Option

"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have built a cross-compiler for m68k-elf with GCC 4.1.1. > I need to know the difference in implementations of -fpic and -fPIC > for this particular target. -fpic uses 16-bit offsets into the GOT, thus limiting its size to 32k per object. With -fP

Re: Abt -fpic, -fPIC Option

"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have built a cross-compiler for m68k-elf with GCC 4.1.1. > I need to know the difference in implementations of -fpic and -fPIC > for this particular target. -fpic uses a 16-bit offset when accessing the GOT. -fPIC uses a 32-bit offset. Thus -fpic

Re: LOOP_HEADER tree code?

Hi, On 10/23/06, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hello, for project http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/PreservingLoops, I am considering introducing a tree LOOP_HEADER with single argument N (number of iterations of the loop), that would be present in IL at the beginning of header of each loop.

Re: LOOP_HEADER tree code?

Hello, > On 10/23/06, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Hello, > > > >for project http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/PreservingLoops, I am considering > >introducing a tree LOOP_HEADER with single argument N (number of > >iterations of the loop), that would be present in IL at the beginning of > >h

Problems shifting an int 32 times. Gcc 3.4.5

Hello: I have a problem using the shift operator, maybe a bug (ok, a bug or i'm wrong about shift operator) System: i386-redhat-linux Version: Gcc 3.4.5 Case: In the next snipplet: unsigned int getMask(int n){ unsigned int mask = 0; a = ~(~(a)

Re: Problems shifting an int 32 times. Gcc 3.4.5

> I have a problem using the shift operator, maybe a bug (ok, a bug or i'm > wrong about shift operator) You are wrong about the shift operator. This is a bug in your code, not a gcc bug. Shift operators are only defined for non-negative shifts counts less than the size of the value being shifte

Re: GCC 4.2 branch created; mainline open in Stage 1

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Robert Schwebel wrote: > I don't understand yet how the next steps for 4.2 will look like; will > there be further snapshots (ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/) of the > 4.2 branch, or will the next snapshots be only for 4.3? The GCC 4.2 snapshots will now track the 4.2 rel

-fdump-tree explanation

Hi all, i want to make a statistic(i haven't found one) over linux source code, and i want to know how many times expressions are simplified by gcc. I've found that "-O -ftree-dominator-opts -fdump-tree-optimized" writes a file optimized, now if i can compare it with a not optimized one i win, "u

Re: GCC 4.2 branch created; mainline open in Stage 1

Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Robert Schwebel wrote: | > I don't understand yet how the next steps for 4.2 will look like; will | > there be further snapshots (ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/) of the | > 4.2 branch, or will the next snapshots be only for 4.

gcc-4.2-20061024 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.2-20061024 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20061024/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: GMP test

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > But this is a different case as this error is for users rather than > > developers. > > So instead of getting an error early before compiling, we get an error 10 > > to 20 > > minutes later and users get upset that they get an error this late for

Re: More __comp_ctor () woes

For the code shown below, if i get the type node for the class: "MyClassT" and then call TYPE_METHODS() on it and iterate over the nodes, there is no FUNCTION_DECL node for the function: MyClassT::MyClassT<::int, ::char const*>(::char const*) From what I understand from the documentation, sinc

Re: GMP test

I'm more content with the gmp check at the top level and don't plan to submit a change to that. Although I agree if this configure is shared between binutils, gdb and gcc, and you're not compiling gcc, then it shouldn't require gmp. So maybe something like your "test -d" fragment would be appr

Re: GMP test

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:32 +0900, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I'm more content with the gmp check at the top level and don't plan to > > submit a change to that. Although I agree if this configure is shared > > between binutils, gdb and gcc, and you're not compiling gcc, then it > > shouldn't requir

Trunk error

I get the following errors from mpfr 2.2.0. Are there any patches I need for it? These occur while compiling GCC trunk 4.3. Started today. Bobby 1686-pc-cygwin ar rc libbackend.a double-int.o tree-chrec.o tree-scalar-evolution.o tree-data-r ef.o tree-cfg.o tree-dfa.o tree-eh.o tree-ssa.o tree-op

Re: GMP test

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > I'm more content with the gmp check at the top level and don't plan to > > submit a change to that. Although I agree if this configure is shared > > between binutils, gdb and gcc, and you're not compiling gcc, then it > > shouldn't require gmp. So

Re: GMP test

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:32 +0900, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > I'm more content with the gmp check at the top level and don't plan to > > submit a change to that. Although I agree if this configure is shared > > between binutils, gdb and gcc, and you're not compiling gcc, then it > > shouldn't requir

Re: GMP test

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 13:32 +0900, Paolo Bonzini wrote: I'm more content with the gmp check at the top level and don't plan to submit a change to that. Although I agree if this configure is shared between binutils, gdb and gcc, and you're not compiling gcc, then it shoul

Re: GMP test

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 14:14 +0900, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Not as bad as you put it, if installing and typing "make" solves the > issue (either for zip/unzip or gmp/mpfr, it is the same). I'll let the > maintainers decide. See my other email which explains why it is not user friendly. Waiting 2