> The wiki page
>http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Memory_management
> might help you
>
> I had a quick glance at your mail, so I may be wrong, but I am not sure that
> you configured correctly the build system so that thet GTY(()) macros get
> processed correctly. Sadly, the gengtype generator does no
> Shouldn't the
> libstdc++ configure script use the new GCC when checking things with
> AC_TRY_COMPILE.
Yes.
-benjamin
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
> It would seem that the place to require the personality
> routine would be in the routine which causes the stack
> unwinding, not in every C++ object file, whether needed
> or not.
Doesn't that otherwise very valid point of view brea
Hi,
May you point me out some sources about writing new #pragma directives
in GCC. I looked at the internet for something to start from but
unfortunately I could not find anything.
Thanks,
Ferad Zyulkyarov
--
Ferad Zyulkyarov
Barcelona Supercomputing Center
I'm really shooting in the dark here, but my guess is that you have a
define_expand for movdi that is not reload safe. You can do this
operation correctly, you just have to reverse the instructions: load
a5 from (a4 + 4) before you load a4 from (a4). See, e.g.,
mips_split_64bit_move in mips.c an
Do we support bootstraping on ARM? I am trying to bootstrap inside a
scratchbox and currently I am having the following error on trunk and
the 4.2 branch:
../branch-4.2/configure --enable-checking --disable-threads
On 13 November 2006 12:27, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
> (insn 94 91 95 6 (set (reg:SI 12 a4)
> (mem/c:SI (reg:SI 12 a4) [0 D.1863+0 S4 A32])) 15 {movsi_load} (nil)
> (nil))
>
> (insn 95 94 31 6 (set (reg:SI 13 a5 [orig:12+4 ] [12])
> (mem/c:SI (plus:SI (reg:SI 12 a4)
>
On 13 November 2006 12:37, Dave Korn wrote:
> You *must* implement a movdi expander, and it has to be clever enough to
> notice when one of the output registers is going to clobber one of the input
> operands and emit the two SImode halves of the move in the opposite order.
Take a look at, e
On 11/13/06, Ferad Zyulkyarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
May you point me out some sources about writing new #pragma directives
in GCC. I looked at the internet for something to start from but
unfortunately I could not find anything.
google("site:gcc.gnu.org inurl:gcc-patches pragma")
http
Le Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:19:16PM +0100, basile écrivait/wrote:
> on Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 11:53:29PM +0200, I (Basile S.) asked
>
> > There are several topics that I wish to be covered a bit on the Wiki (or
> > some other documentations), mostly related to configuration (and autoconf,
> > with wh
For me the strategy that worked was:
1) Find out who can sign the document. Sometimes someone can sign on
behalf of some important and busy person. Don't leave this task to
someone else, otherwise the document will be jumping from office to
office and will get lost.
2) Go directly to the person
reduced test case:
--
typedef void (*personality_routine) (
void *);
typedef struct
{
unsigned vfp[63];
} phase1_vrs;
void
__gnu_Unwind_RaiseException (unsigned * ucbp);
void
__gnu_Unwind_RaiseException (unsigned * uc
Brooks Moses <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyhow, if I try this, I get the following error (trimmed slightly for
> clarity):
>
>gcc -c [...] ../../svn-source/gcc/genconstants.c
>In file included from tm.h:7,
> from ../../svn-source/gcc/genconstants.c:32:
>options.h
On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:32:27PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >"Carlos O'Donell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>A relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.
> >
> >I agree.
> >
> >I can't approve your patches, though.
>
> This patch is OK, once we reach Stage
If i ctrl-c a gcc bootstrap in the middle of building a stage (IE when
it's compiling, not when it's configuring), make clean no longer works
properly.
It used to a few months ago
Now I get:
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `clean'. Stop.
make: *** [clean-stage4-gcc] Error 2
(with the error
/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-elf-multi/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-elf-multi/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-elf-multi/sh-multi-elf/newlib/
-isystem
/home/amylaar/bld/2006-11-10/sh-elf-multi/sh-multi-elf/newlib/targ-include
-isystem /home/amylaar/bld/2006
Paul Brook wrote:
For other optimisations I'm not convinced there's an easy win compared with
make -j. You have to make sure those passes don't have any global state, and
as other people have pointed out garbage collection gets messy. The compile
server project did something similar, and that
Paul Brook wrote:
> >For other optimisations I'm not convinced there's an easy win compared
> >with make -j. You have to make sure those passes don't have any global
> >state, and as other people have pointed out garbage collection gets messy.
> >The compile server project did something similar
On Nov 12, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I think i am having trouble with the garbage collector deleting
the memory for tree nodes that i am still using.
You must have a reference to that data from gc managed memory. If you
don't use use gc to allocate the data structures, it j
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each of the functions in a C/C++ program is dependent on
the global environment, but each is independent of each other.
Separate threads could process the tree/RTL for each function
independently, with the results merged on completion. This
may interact adversely with so
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 06:47:08PM +0200, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> > I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
> > Bootstrap comparison failure! ...
>
> I also see this bootstrap failure on i386-redhat-linux systems -
> on the one system the gcc used to compile stage1 is:
> gcc version 3.2.2 20
Olivier Galibert wrote:
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 02:46:58PM -0800, Michael Eager wrote:
It would seem that the place to require the personality
routine would be in the routine which causes the stack
unwinding, not in every C++ object file, whether needed
or not.
Doesn't that otherwise very vali
Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 12, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I think i am having trouble with the garbage collector deleting
the memory for tree nodes that i am still using.
You must have a reference to that data from gc managed memory. If
you don't use use gc to allocate the
On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I used the idea you showed above and it seems to work (I dont
understand enough to know why you say it wont work and thus this
email).
It is the difference between all features of gcc working, or just most
of the features working. If you w
Mike Stump wrote:
It is the difference between all features of gcc working, or just
most of the features working. If you want pch to work, you have to
think about the issue and do up the appropriate code. However, I bet
you don't need pch to work. If you are doing real stuff for a real
On 02 November 2006 01:38, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Tracking down a gcse bug while unrolling a loop where the count is
>> known to be one, I've narrowed the problem down to the actions of
>> commit_edge_insertions and bypass_conditional_jumps, and I could use
>
On Nov 11, 2006, at 03:21, Mike Stump wrote:
The cost of my assembler is around 1.0% (ppc) to 1.4% (x86)
overhead as measured with -pipe -O2 on expr.c,. If it was
converted, what type of speedup would you expect?
Given that CPU usage is at 100% now for most jobs, such as
bootstrapping GCC,
On 14 November 2006 01:51, Geert Bosch wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2006, at 03:21, Mike Stump wrote:
>> The cost of my assembler is around 1.0% (ppc) to 1.4% (x86)
>> overhead as measured with -pipe -O2 on expr.c,. If it was
>> converted, what type of speedup would you expect?
>
> Given that CPU usage i
On Nov 13, 2006, at 21:27, Dave Korn wrote:
To be fair, Mike was talking about multi-core SMP, not threading
on a single
cpu, so given that CPU usage is at 100% now for most jobs, there is
an Nx100%
speedup to gain from using 1 thread on each of N cores.
I'm mostly building GCC on multip
On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
So are you saying that the quick hack that i did will not work for
fixing the memory problem I have but that it will probably raise
its ugly head again
No.
or just that PCH will not work?
Yes.
Are there any advantages to using PCH beside
On 14 November 2006 03:30, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
>> At most there is about 40 lines of code in each of them.
>
> PCH is when you have 500,000 lines of C++ code in the main .h file,
> and 20 lines in the .C file. :-)
Nonono, PCH is when you hav
Gcc 4.3 revision 118764 failed galgel in SPEC CPU 2000 with
-O2 -ffast-math on Linux/x86-64. I got
galgel_base.o2[30363]: segfault at 000b rip 000b rsp
007fb008 error 14
Gcc 4.3 revision 118723 passes SPEC CPU 2006 with -O2 -ffast-math on
Linux/x86-64. But it fail
On Mon, Nov 13, 2006 at 10:37:16PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Gcc 4.3 revision 118764 failed galgel in SPEC CPU 2000 with
> -O2 -ffast-math on Linux/x86-64. I got
>
> galgel_base.o2[30363]: segfault at 000b rip 000b rsp
> 007fb008 error 14
>
> Gcc 4.3 revision 11872
33 matches
Mail list logo
