how to dump tree in pt.c:tsubst?

How does one dump the trees in pt.c:tsubst in some hunan readable format. I've tried: struct dump_info di; di.stream=stderr; cp_dump_tree(&di, args); cp_dump_tree(&di, arg); cp_dump_tree(&di, t); however, no ouput is produced because the TREE_CODE for each of the 2nd args doesn't mat

Re: ICE in gcc/libgcc2.c:566 (gcc trunk)

On 07 Feb 2007 15:36:14 -0800 Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can anybody else out there recreate this on their x86_64 system? Not that I could not recreate the segfault but I found a way to hide the segfault. Instead of optimizing with nocona make \ LDFLAGS

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208 > > and its mirrors. > > The changes relative to RC1 are fixes for: > > 1. PR 29683: a wrong-code issue on Darwin > 2. PR 30370: a build problem for certain Power

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

> 1. g++.dg/debug/debug9.C fails as described in PR 30649. I believe this > is simply a mistaken testcase checkin. If confirmed by someone, no big > deal I can remove it. Looks bogus to me like the 2 other testcases. > 3. gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c is a new failure at -O2 and at more

Re: US Daylight Savings Time Changes

David Edelsohn wrote: >> Tom Tromey writes: > > Tom> David probably knows this, but for others, Jakub and Andrew put in a > Tom> patch for this today. I think it is only on trunk, not any other > Tom> branches. > > Should this be included in GCC 4.1.2? Unfortunately, I think it's too

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Larry Evans wrote: > The doc on --enable-checking at: > >http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html > > contains: > >--enable-checking=list > > and implies that list may either be a category (yes,all,release,no) or a > sequence of flags (e.g. fold,gcac,gc,valgrind); howe

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: [Java folks: see below for check-in window for daylight savings time patches.] > Test results for sparc/sparc64 on solaris2.10 are here: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00422.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00423.html Thanks! In g

Is compare no longer enabled by default?

"make bootstrap" used to compare stage2 and stage3 after gcc was bootstrapped. "make bootstrap" would abort if comparison was failed. Now, compare stage2 and stage3 is not longer done for "make bootstrap". Is that intentional? I think it is a very bad idea. H.J.

Re: Is compare no longer enabled by default?

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:00:41PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > "make bootstrap" used to compare stage2 and stage3 after gcc was > bootstrapped. "make bootstrap" would abort if comparison was failed. > Now, compare stage2 and stage3 is not longer done for > "make bootstrap". Is that intentional? I thi

Re: ICE in gcc/libgcc2.c:566 (gcc trunk)

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 05:11:15PM +0100, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote: > On 07 Feb 2007 15:36:14 -0800 > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Can anybody else out there recreate this on their x86_64 system? > > Not that I could not recreate the segfault but I found a way to hide the > s

Pre Compiled Headers

Hi All, I am coding an extension for GCC and am having some difficulty with pre-compiled headers. I dont know if my understanding of how they work is completely correct and so my code is getting a segfault. I have a hook into gimplify_function_tree() and I process functions as they pass through t

Re: Is compare no longer enabled by default?

"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now, compare stage2 and stage3 is not longer done for > "make bootstrap". Since when? Works fine for me. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 5

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

> Therefore, if the Java folks have daylight savings time patches that > they would like to check in, please do so before Monday evening, > California time. If these work out, we'll leave them in for 4.1.2; > otherwise, we'll back them out. We will not do an RC4 simply to correct > problems in th

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

On 02/11/2007 02:16 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Larry Evans wrote: [snip] describe what the flags mean. Could someone do that or provide a link to the descriptions. The --enable-checking values are described briefly in gcc/config.in, here's a link for quick access: http://

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Therefore, if the Java folks have daylight savings time patches that >> they would like to check in, please do so before Monday evening, >> California time. If these work out, we'll leave them in for 4.1.2; >> otherwise, we'll back them out. We will not do an RC4 simply to

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

On 02/11/2007 04:28 PM, Larry Evans wrote: [snip] I think a patch adding descriptions to the docs would be an improvement. Would you like to submit one? Thanks, --Kaveh I could, but the only thing I would do would be something like: The meaning of these flags can be inferred

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Larry Evans wrote: [snip] I tried downloading and editying http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html; however, I soon ran into problems. Attached is a diff between the original .html and the modifications I tried. It shows that even the comments in config.in are confusing :(

Re: ICE in gcc/libgcc2.c:566 (gcc trunk)

On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:09:40PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 05:11:15PM +0100, Hanno Meyer-Thurow wrote: > > On 07 Feb 2007 15:36:14 -0800 > > Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Can anybody else out there recreate this on their x86_64 system? > > > > Not

Re: gcc-4.3, glibc and AC_PROG_CC_STDC

I am CC'ing this message to gcc@gcc.gnu.org to give GCC developers a heads-up on the situation. For GCC developers: please see for the problem with a gcc-4.3 snapshot with --std=gnu99 -O2" and glibc wchar.h. Ralf Wildenhues <[EM