Good morning,
The following trivial patch fixes an apparent typo in configure.ac in the gcc/
subdirectory. This is HEAD, I did not check if this is needed on any of the
branches as well.
Regards, Jan van Dijk
2006-11-06 Jan van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.ac
Kenneth Zadeck wrote on 11/04/06 15:17:
1) defining the set of optimizations that need to be skipped. 2)
defining the set of functions that trigger the special processing.
This seems too simplistic. Number of variables/blocks/statements is a
factor, but they may interact in ways that are dif
Joern Rennecke wrote:
It appears that most of the errors are of the form:
collect-ld:
cannot find -lgfortranbegin
I've found that the problem was related to configure deciding to build
fortran and enable runtime tests for it when doing check-gcc even though
libgfortran was not present; I had
On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 15:17 -0500, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> ld.
>
> However, I think that before anyone starts hacking anything, we should
> come to a consensus on an overall strategy and implement something
> consistent for the entire compiler rather than attack some particular
> pass in a manne
Hello,
I have discovered that volatile expresions can cause the tree-ssa
pre pass to loop forever in "compute_antic". The problem seems to be
that the expresion is assigned a different value number at each
iteration, hence the fixed point required to exit the loop is never reached.
Thi
On 11/6/06, Ricardo FERNANDEZ PASCUAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I have discovered that volatile expresions can cause the tree-ssa
pre pass to loop forever in "compute_antic". The problem seems to be
that the expresion is assigned a different value number at each
iteration, hence the
Thank you for your answer. I give some more information below:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On 11/6/06, Ricardo FERNANDEZ PASCUAL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
I have discovered that volatile expresions can cause the tree-ssa
pre pass to loop forever in "compute_antic". The problem seems to
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-11-04 at 15:17 -0500, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> ld.
>>
>
>
>> However, I think that before anyone starts hacking anything, we should
>> come to a consensus on an overall strategy and implement something
>> consistent for the entire compiler rather t
Ricardo FERNANDEZ PASCUAL writes:
>
> Notice that the arg 1 of the MODIFY_EXPR is a COMPONENT_REF which
> is marked as volatile. Notice also that the arg 1 of the
> COMPONENT_REF is not marked as such, because that field is not
> volatile itself and there are other accesses to it which are no
The problem with trying to solve this problem on a per pass basis rather
than coming up with an integrate solution is that we are completely
leaving the user out of the thought process.
There are some uses who have big machines or a lot of time on their
hands and want the damn the torpedoes full
Kenneth Zadeck wrote on 11/06/06 12:54:
I am not saying that my original proposal was the best of all possible
worlds, but solving hacking things on a pass by pass or pr by pr basis
is not really solving the problem.
I don't think it's a hackish approach. We have policy setting at the
high le
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am going to try to fix:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29721
>
> Which is a problem where a %lo relocation gets separated from its
> corresponding %hi.
>
> What is the mechanism that tries to prevent this from happening? And
> where
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Looking at a .md file of a backend it there a way to know whether a
> target supports long long
gcc always supports "long long" for all targets.
Can you ask a more precise question?
Ian
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am going to try to fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29721
Which is a problem where a %lo relocation gets separated from its
corresponding %hi.
What is the mechanism that tries to prevent this from happening?
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>I am going to try to fix:
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29721
> >>
> >>Which is a problem where a %lo relocation gets separated from its
> >>corresponding %h
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I am going to try to fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29721
Which is a problem where a %lo relocation gets separated from its
corresponding %hi
>
> 2006-11-06 Jan van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * configure.ac: Fixed typo in case statement: :: changed to ;;
>
Sorry, that was my typo. I have committed your patch, with additional
* configure: Regenerate.
as obvious. Thanks.
Danny
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 10:52:00AM +0530, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Looking at a .md file of a backend it there a way to know whether a
> target supports long long
> Should i look for patterns with machine mode DI?
No. For example, 8-bit, 16-bit and 32-bit targets should normally n
On Nov 5, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Although I understand what is the difference between dg-do compile and
dg-do assemble, I have noticed that there are many testcases that use
either dg-compile or dg-do assemble and do nothing with the output.
Thus, I would like to know:
Hello,
I've been working with some old programs that have been build with other
compilers and moving them to GCC. The code is for an embedded m68k
(mcpu32) application with no onboard OS (yet). I've been disappointed with
the size of the code that I've seen generated by the compiler, and after
Hello,
The configure changes on the trunk require GMP 4.1+ and MPFR 2.2+. If
I understand things correctly, these libraries are only needed for
gfortran. Would it be possible to disable the checks for GMP and MPFR
when building with --enable-languages=[something not including
fortran] ?
Doug Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The configure changes on the trunk require GMP 4.1+ and MPFR 2.2+. If
> I understand things correctly, these libraries are only needed for
> gfortran. Would it be possible to disable the checks for GMP and MPFR
> when building with --enable-languages=[some
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Here I've used a macro to keep track of the farthest place reached in the
> code. As you can see, I've even tried to set it up in such a way that it
> will use a register to access the value. However, I don't get that result,
> as I guess that is optimized out. Inst
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
The problem with trying to solve this problem on a per pass basis rather
than coming up with an integrate solution is that we are completely
leaving the user out of the thought process.
There are some uses who have big machines or a lot of time on their
hands and want the d
Brooks Moses wrote on 11/06/06 17:41:
Is there a need for any fine-grained control on this knob, though, or
would it be sufficient to add an -O4 option that's equivalent to -O3 but
with no optimization throttling?
We need to distinguish two orthogonal issues here: effort and enabled
transfor
Good day,
In line with the UN directive of diversion of dormant accounts to charity, I
thereby bring to you an opportunity to share with me in a certain
redistribution of certain accounts in my coffers for the financial year about
to end 2006.
I am a registered financial service authorit
I'm trying to compile gcc v3.2.3 and I'm getting through most of it but
the make file stops showing the following error:
/bin/sh: ./../../../configure: No such file or directory
configure: error: ./../../../configure failed for libU77
If I could get some help troubleshooting this problem, I'd b
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Philip Coltharp wrote:
I'm trying to compile gcc v3.2.3 and I'm getting through most of it
but the make file stops showing the following error:
/bin/sh: ./../../../configure: No such file or directory
I suspect the answer is don't do:
../configure
instead, do
On Nov 6, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Philip Coltharp wrote:
I'm trying to compile gcc v3.2.3 and I'm getting through most of
it but the make file stops showing the following error:
/bin/sh: ./../../../configure: No such file or directory
I suspect the a
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Should that message refer to this:
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
> >
> > or this:
> > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gmp/
> > http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/
> >
> > or this (perhaps with mor
Hi,
Right now after patches by the Apple folks causes you to need a newer
dwarfutils which don't exist outside of Apple so the community of Free
Source and GCC is not helped by making Darwin a primary platform.
Maybe we should list a specific version of darwin which changes the
confusion of which
I ended up including both your preference and mine. Hopefully one or
other other (or both) end up being useful to users.
Thanks, this will help with some of the questions I received
internally today.
-eric
Right now after patches by the Apple folks causes you to need a
newer
dwarfutils which don't exist outside of Apple so the community of Free
Source and GCC is not helped by making Darwin a primary platform.
Maybe we should list a specific version of darwin which changes the
confusion of whi
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 20:57 -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> As far as 4.2 this is the first I've heard of it. What's the problem?
Well you need a new cctools which does not exist for 10.2.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 20:57 -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
> We're in stage1, breakages happen - see the current fun with gmp/mpfr as
> well as c99 inlining. File a bug or bring a problem up for discussion.
Except this is a different issue as the patch is for Darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pat
On Nov 6, 2006, at 8:59 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 20:57 -0800, Eric Christopher wrote:
As far as 4.2 this is the first I've heard of it. What's the problem?
Well you need a new cctools which does not exist for 10.2.
While I'm sure you could be less specific, would you
Except this is a different issue as the patch is for Darwin.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg00168.html
Geoff appears to have given a workaround for the problem and has
promised to inquire further about more up to date solutions. Another
solution, of course, is to revert the defaul
I would more worried about the second issue if gcc 4.2 was
remotely close to release. However at the rate regressions are
being fixed (or not) in gcc 4.2 branch, I wouldn't hold my
breath as to which is released first (gcc 4.2 or Leopard).
Once Leopard is released, Darwin8 will become the 'prev
On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Oh and 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 compiling with GCC are all broken (so is
10.3).
I'd probably suggest at least 10.3.9 myself
My take, 10.2 and on should work. I think it is wrong to put things
into darwin.[ch] that don't work on earlier systems.
Thanks for the reply
My target (non gcc/private one) fails for long long testcases and
there are cases (with long long) which gets through, but not with the
right output. When i replace long long with long the testcases runs
fine, even those giving wrong output.
The target is not able to compile
"Mohamed Shafi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So when i looked into the .md file i saw no patterns with DI machine
> mode ,used for long long(am i right?), execpt
>
> define_insn "adddi3" and define_insn "subdi3"
>
> The .md file says that this is to prevent gcc from synthesising it,
> though
On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
My target (non gcc/private one) fails for long long testcases
Does it work flawlessly otherwise, if not, fix all those problems
first. After those are all fixed, then you can see if it then just
works. In particular, you will want to ensur
Hi all,
I am trying to combine the compare and branch instruction. But my
instructions are not getting generated as my operands are not matched
properly.
Previously for individual compare instructions, i had
operand 0 - Register operand
operand 1 - Non memory operand.
For branch instruction,
op
"Rohit Arul Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am trying to combine the compare and branch instruction. But my
> instructions are not getting generated as my operands are not matched
> properly.
>
> Previously for individual compare instructions, i had
> operand 0 - Register operand
> operand 1
Jack Howarth wrote:
I would more worried about the second issue if gcc 4.2 was
remotely close to release. However at the rate regressions are
being fixed (or not) in gcc 4.2 branch, I wouldn't hold my
breath as to which is released first (gcc 4.2 or Leopard).
Once Leopard is released, Darwin8
45 matches
Mail list logo
