Ross Ridge wrote:
>There are other MSC library functions that MinGW doesn't provide, so
>libraries may not link even with a _chkstk alias.
Mark Mitchell wrote:
>Got a list?
Probably the most common missing symbols, using their assembler
names are:
__ftol2
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20061104 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20061104/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hello,
I have been playing with gcc's new (to me) auto vectorization
optimizations. I have a particular loop for which I have made external
provisions to ensure that the data is 16-byte aligned. I have tried
everything I can think of to give gcc the hint that it is operating on
aligned data, but
I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The problem
appears to be that it's not looking in the right places for libgmp.so.3
when it calls ./gcc/xgcc at the end of the stage.
-
The box, for what it's
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
> mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The problem
> appears to be that it's not looking in the right places for libgmp.so.3
> when it call
I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some time to
address the problem of compiling very large functions in a somewhat
systematic manner.
GCC has two competing interests here: it needs to be able to provide
state of the art optimization for modest sized functions and it needs
On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some time to
address the problem of compiling very large functions in a somewhat
systematic manner.
GCC has two competing interests here: it needs to be able to provide
state of the a
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some time to
>> address the problem of compiling very large functions in a somewhat
>> systematic manner.
>>
>> GCC has two competing interests here: it need
On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some time to
>> address the problem of compiling very large functions in a somewhat
>> systematic mann
Could anyone comment on the following? Geoff introduced
fixes in r117741 to allow multilib builds on 32-bit PowerPC
processors on Darwin PPC. However the necessary changes for the
libjava subdirectory were never introduced. I have been
attempting to fix this by modelling a patch after the change
Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > On 11/4/06, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some
>> time to
>> >> address the problem of compiling very large fun
On 2006-11-04 14:21:39 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It's doing exactly what it ought to, though unintuitive. If you tell a
> -compiler to use L/usr/local/lib, you're responsible for also setting
> up either an rpath or LD_LIBRARY_PATH to point at /usr/local/lib; doing
> it by default causes a
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The problem
appears to be that it's not looking in the right places for libgmp
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:58:42PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 10:57:14AM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> >>I've been setting up a Debian box to do builds on, and make bootstrap on
> >>mainline is failing somewhere in the middle of Stage 1. The pr
On Sat, Nov 04, 2006 at 04:58:42PM -0800, Brooks Moses wrote:
> I guess I was assuming that since GMP is supposedly only a prerequisite
> for building the compiler and not for using it, that it was being linked
> in statically rather than dynamically. But I guess that wouldn't apply
> to xgcc,
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I think that it is time that we in the GCC community took some time to
address the problem of compiling very large functions in a somewhat
systematic manner.
While I agree with you, I think that there are so many things we are
already trying to address, that this one can
16 matches
Mail list logo
