Hi,
From the recent mails that you have posted in the gcc mailing list I
understand that you have a very few tutorials for gcc trees that are
complete(at least in your opinion).
It would be very helpful of you if you can get me the details of those
tutorials.
I get advantage from the GCC inte
Andrew Pinski wrote:
My guess is that most or all of those are factors, but some are more
important than others. My favorite tactic to decrease the number of
bugs is to set up a unit test framework for your code base (so you can
test changes to individual functions without having to run the whol
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz10:12, przez Michael
Veksler:
Andrew, you are both correct and incorrect. Certainly,
deterministic unit testing
is not very useful. However, random unit testing is priceless. I
have been doing
pseudo-random unit tests for years, believe me it
On 1/24/07, David Carlton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 17:54:10 -0500, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, I was doing some archeology on past releases and we seem to be
> getting into longer release cycles.
Interesting.
I'm a GCC observer, not a participant, but he
> Your conclusion may well be correct. The question for this group is:
> what's the best that GCC can do to serve the community/society?
Do all it can to discourage people from writing safety- or
security-critical code in a language they don't understand? ;-)
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz10:12, przez Michael Veksler:
Andrew, you are both correct and incorrect. Certainly, deterministic
unit testing
is not very useful. However, random unit testing is priceless. I have
been doing
pseudo-random unit tests for years,
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz14:05, przez Michael
Veksler:
From my experience on my small constraint solver (80,000 LOC) by
making stuff
more suitable for random unit testing you get:
1. Maintainable+reusable code (with all its benefits).
2. Faster code: Due to simplici
Ira Rosen wrote on 01/02/07 03:44:
In the example of dynamic partitioning below (Figure 6), I don't understand
why MEM7 is not killed in line 13 and is killed in line 20 later. As far as
I understand, in line 13 'c' is in the alias set, and it's currdef is MEM7,
so it must be killed by the store
Hello all,
It is common to have structures which end with an "undefined"
variable-length array like
struct foo_st {
struct bar_st* someptr;
int len;
struct biz_st *tab[] /* actual size is len */;
};
I'm sorry to be unable to get the exact wording of this construct,
which I am sure is in so
I just wrote in my previous message
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-01/msg00958.html []
> 2. To have a definition of VARYING_SIZE is some of our header files
> (config.h, or system.h or others) which is 1 for old compilers and
> empty for new ones (including gcc itself), maybe
>
> #if (de
I probably should add
;-)
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Non_002dbugs.html
Hi all,
Which optimization levels affect gimple?
I've tried for a program to check what kind of gimple code you get
with -fdump-tree-gimple and -O0 and -O3 have different results,
however, -O3 and -O9 have exactly the same output. Will -Ox for x > 3,
generate the same gimple trees? (i.e., are don
"Paulo J. Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which optimization levels affect gimple?
> I've tried for a program to check what kind of gimple code you get
> with -fdump-tree-gimple and -O0 and -O3 have different results,
> however, -O3 and -O9 have exactly the same output. Will -Ox for x > 3,
>
Hello Andreas
Your latest patch to unwind-pe.h breaks at least canadian
cross-compilation host=mingw target=mingw:
In file included from /usr/local/src/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:40:
/usr/local/src/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-pe.h:133: error: expected
declaration specifiers or '...' before '
Hi, I have found another bug for the m6812 front end, the error is:
-> SNS.cpp: In member function `void a::d()':
-> SNS.cpp:15: error: unable to find a register to spill in class `A_OR_SP_REGS'
-> SNS.cpp:15: error: this is the insn:
-> (insn 14 13 15 0 0xb7dca6b4 (parallel [
-> (set
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 07:51:21AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Your conclusion may well be correct. The question for this group is:
> > what's the best that GCC can do to serve the community/society?
>
> Do all it can to discourage people from writing safety- or
> security-critical code in a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:19 AM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: char should be signed by default
>
> GCC should treat plain char in the same fashion on all types of
machi
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and you
think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of 100?
Standard answer, trivially, it is as good as you want it to be. If
you wanted it to be better, you'd co
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 01/24/07 12:44:
check what kind of gimple code you get with -fdump-tree-gimple and
-O0 and -O3 have different results,
-fdump-tree-gimple is the first dump *before* any optimizations occur.
To see the effect of all the GIMPLE optimizations you should use
-fdump-tree-opt
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz19:53, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and
you think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of
100?
Standard answer, trivially, it i
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Basile STARYNKEVITCH
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 10:30 AM
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: variable-sized array fields in structure?
>
> Hello all,
>
> It is common to have structures which end
On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
This argument fails (trivially) on the assumption that there is an
incremental way ("fixes") to improve it in time not exceeding the
expected remaining life span of a developer.
I welcome your existence proof for just one piece that can't b
> "Marcin" == Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcin> Just forget ADA and Java in mainstream. Both of them are seriously
Marcin> impeding casual contributions.
We tried this once for libgcj. We had gcj in the tree (small amount
of code, couldn't really bother anybody) but not libg
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:02:19 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz02:30, przez David Carlton:
>> For 4, you should probably spend some time figuring out why bugs are
>> being introduced into the code in the first place. Is test coverage
>>
subreg_get_inf() in rtlanal.c blindly assumes that any hard register
can hold any smaller-than-native mode:
nregs_ymode = hard_regno_nregs[xregno][ymode];
. . .
&& (GET_MODE_SIZE (ymode) % nregs_ymode) == 0)
However, there are registers in m32c that cannot hold a QImode value.
By this,
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 23:16:47 -0500 (EST), Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Let me bring up another point:
> 0) bugs go unnoticed for a couple of releases and then become part of
> the release criteria.
Yeah, that's a good point. So maybe there's another feedback loop to
consider:
lon
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 11:12:24 +0200, Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Deterministic unit-tests are almost useless in long lived projects,
I think you might be using the term "unit test" differently from me?
Nothing is more valuable for a long-lived project than having unit
tests coverin
We would like to invite everyone to read over the Call for Papers for
the 2007 GCC Developers' Summit located at
http://www.gccsummit.org/2007/cfp.php and to consider submitting a
proposal for this year.
This year we're going to be from July 18th to 20th for a change and hope
that you're all
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz19:53, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and
you think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of
100?
Standard answer, trivially, it i
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> subreg_get_inf() in rtlanal.c blindly assumes that any hard register
> can hold any smaller-than-native mode:
>
> nregs_ymode = hard_regno_nregs[xregno][ymode];
> . . .
> && (GET_MODE_SIZE (ymode) % nregs_ymode) == 0)
>
> However, there are regi
Marco Trudel wrote:
Hello Andreas
Your latest patch to unwind-pe.h breaks at least canadian
cross-compilation host=mingw target=mingw:
In file included from /usr/local/src/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:40:
/usr/local/src/gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-pe.h:133: error: expected
declaration specifi
> So can you expand on what is actually going wrong?
At the moment, the problem is divide by zero - nregs_ymode is zero.
IIRC the problem before was that reload kept choosing $r2 or $r3 for
pseudos that were QImode. Since the m32c is already register starved,
this leads to unfixable situations.
The SC has appointed Jakub Jelinek as an additional maintainer of the
GNU OpenMP library (libgomp).
Jakub, please update MAINTAINERS accordingly.
Thanks!
Jason
Hi,
I'm learning MIPS in course so i want to exercise with some MIPS code
so i will write my codes in c and translate it into MIPS assembly and then i
will check it with my hand
write assembly code.. i don't have linux in my machine but i have cygwin and
using windows.
Can anyone help me ???
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:02:19 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> That's largely because individual tests in the test suite are too
> long, which in turn is because the tests are testing code at a
> per-binary granularity: you have to run all of gcc, or all of one
> of the prog
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070124 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070124/
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
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
One thing that would certainly help as a foundation for possible
further improvement in performance in this area would be to have
xgcc contain all the front ends directly linked into it.
That does seem debatable.
It could be a starting poin
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:26:32 -0500 (EST), Andrew Pinski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> That's largely because individual tests in the test suite are too
>> long, which in turn is because the tests are testing code at a
>> per-binary granularity: you have to run all of gcc, or all of one
>> of the pr
> I believe we've generally assumed that all hard registers can be
> subreg'd. That said, HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK should keep QImode values
> out of those registers. And insn constraints should keep reload
> from using those registers for QImode insns. So can you expand on
> what is actually going w
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:26, przez Andrew
Pinski:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 03:02:19 +0100, Marcin Dalecki
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
That's largely because individual tests in the test suite are too
long, which in turn is because the tests are testing code at a
per-binar
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:52, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
One thing that would certainly help as a foundation for possible
further improvement in performance in this area would be to have
xgcc contain all the front ends directly
> Suddenly rejecting all that code, or making it generate a different
> result, would not serve the community/society.
Sure, but that wasn't the issue I was addressing.
I was addressing the claim that we allegedly have people writing security-
and/or safety-critical software who don't understand
Followup - it seems that CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS governs whether
these subregs are attempted. It's not clear from the documentation
that it does this.
Hello,
It's nice to see a more security-minded release of gcc with v4.
Variables are moved around to reduce chances for exploitation,
-fstack-protector, etc. Great!
Why are local variables once-again adjacent to the saved frame pointer
though? gcc v 2 called and wants one of its "features" back.
On Thursday 25 January 2007 01:22, In Cognito wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It's nice to see a more security-minded release of gcc with v4.
> Variables are moved around to reduce chances for exploitation,
> -fstack-protector, etc. Great!
>
> Why are local variables once-again adjacent to the saved frame po
char buf[512]
sub$0x208,%esp
0x208 = 520 bytes allocated on the stack. there are 8 extra bytes
between %esp and buf[0]. Normally there is also some padding between
the end of local vars (buf[511]) and the saved frame pointer. In the
versions of gcc 4 that i've looked at that is no longer the
The one security related argument that makes sense to me
here is the business of writing tests for overflow that
make the wrap assumption. I can see that having a security
implication.
Richard Kenner wrote:
Oh, and teaching all of the programmers out there all the subtle nuances
of C and trying to get them to write proper code: good luck. That
simply won't happen.
If people who write security-critical code in a programming language
can't take time to learn the details of tha
On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:19 PM, meltem wrote:
I'm learning MIPS in course so i want to exercise with some MIPS code
so i will write my codes in c and translate it into MIPS assembly
and then i
will check it with my hand write assembly code.. i don't have linux
in my machine but i have cygwin and
Here's an example of bad assumptions. The current code calculates the
subreg location BEFORE checking to see if such a subreg is legal.
This patch moved the legality check before the location calculations.
With this patch, I can build gcc's libraries and newlib, but I haven't
run full regressions
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-01-24, o godz23:52, przez Mike Stump:
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
It could be a starting point to help avoiding quite a lot of
overhead needed to iterate over command line options for example.
Odd. You think that time
Diego Novillo wrote:
> So, I was doing some archeology on past releases and we seem to be
> getting into longer release cycles. With 4.2 we have already crossed
> the 1 year barrier.
I think there are several factors here.
First, I haven't had as much time to put in as RM lately as in past, so
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's an example of bad assumptions. The current code calculates the
> subreg location BEFORE checking to see if such a subreg is legal.
> This patch moved the legality check before the location calculations.
> With this patch, I can build gcc's libraries
53 matches
Mail list logo
