Hi all,
Also wanted to announce that we are currently developing run-time adaptation
techniques for GCC for statically compiled programs with varying context
and behavior. Our technique relies on function/loop versioning and
static low-overhead monitoring and adaptation routines.
We extend our pr
On 06 Mar 2007 21:48:14 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 06/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| > > On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >> After reviewing a
Hi,
Noticed libg2c.a is missing in /lib in 4.1.1 hierarchy , whats
the equivalent of libg2c.a in gcc 4.1.1 , any pointers .
Satya
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
| Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
-- Gaby
Hi all
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available & working
in the gcc compiler?
2) Will their garbage collection & accelerated message dispatch mechanisms
also be supported?
Thx & please feel free to CC me
Michael
_/
Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Nick
> ---Original Message---
> From: Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
>
> Nick
Effectively that's what
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> > bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a s
On 07 March 2007 15:05, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a seco
On 07 March 2007 15:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Moreover, for some reason when using malloc, a lot of poisonous malloc
> warning come up which are solved by using xmalloc instead, which is
> another thing I cannot figure out. What is better in xmalloc than
> malloc?
Take a look, the source for
On 3/2/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/02/07 10:12:
> In an IPA pass, for each CFG node, I have a tree decl member from
> which I can access the return type, name of the function, argument
> names and its types, but I can't seem to find a way to get the
>
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Maybe, but I consider rejecti
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 10:36:
> Is this normal? It seems there are no basic blocks set for the
> functions. Probably my pass is being run before the bbs are created?
Looks like it. Set a breakpoint in build_tree_cfg and your function.
If gdb stops in your function first, you found the
On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to ge
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 10:36:
> Is this normal? It seems there are no basic blocks set for the
> functions. Probably my pass is being run before the bbs are created?
Looks like it. Set a breakpoint in build_tree_cfg and your functio
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
> What am I missing?
You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
You need to debug one of cc1/cc1plus/jc1
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
> What am I missing?
You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
You need to debug one of cc1/cc1plus/jc1
Thank you. It seems I've not fo
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paulo J. Matos wrote on 03/07/07 11:43:
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> You are debugging the wrong binary. I'd suggest you browse through
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DebuggingGCC
>
> You need t
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:08AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
>
> Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
Or the release notes could just say something like:
* New warning
Hi Michael,
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working
in the gcc compiler?
2) Will their garbage collection & accelerated message dispatch
mechanisms
also be supported?
Fairborz is working on them, I ima
On 07 March 2007 16:16, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As explained: because it makes it impossible for users running old systems
with pre-C99 compilers to build gcc and thereby excludes them from the world
of free software, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.
Well, I surely und
On 07 March 2007 17:44, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
> questioning Paul why he said: "I consider rejecting mixed
> code/declarations to be a feature"
> I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
> containing //,
On Sun, 2007-03-04 at 20:45 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> However, I do think that it's important to eliminate some of the 139
> open P2 and P1 regressions [2], especially those P1 regressions which
> did not appear in GCC 4.1.x.
There are a handful I've been involved with which are labeled as
4.
On Mar 7, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Hi Michael,
Two questions about Apple's Objective-C 2.0 work:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working
in the gcc compiler?
It is work in progress. For current status, you can check out Apple's
4.0
On Mar 7, 2007, at 4:44 AM, Michael Hopkins wrote:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working in the gcc compiler?
I'd like to contribute all the Objective-C front end features in time
for 4.3, unfortunately, I've not started doing that work. I'm hoping
we'
Hi,
gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of stdint.h.
Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
with cross compilations. (It actually fails already for -m32 on x86-64.)
On the othe
On 3/6/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:05:06AM +0800, Zhang Le wrote:
> I have used "strace -f" to check where linker looked for -lqt-mt. From
> what I have observed, it seems that ld didn't use
> $SYSROOT/etc/ld.so.conf.
Well, it's supposed to, so I s
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not
work with cross compilations.
Sounds like a bug? When I try it on my compiler, it works just fine
natively and with cross compilations. I'd file a bug report. If it
is an OS bug,
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 12:05:32PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> >Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not
> >work with cross compilations.
>
> Sounds like a bug? When I try it on my compiler, it works just fine
> natively and w
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 19:21, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
> etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of
> stdint.h.
>
> Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
> with cross compilations
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
Does -fobjc-gc work for you now? It's been on mainline for a while
now. As for accelerated message dispatch, I'm not exactly certain
which feature you're
Option may be recognized. But it entirely depends on Leopard runtime
for support.
On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gfortran provides via ISO C Bindings access to the C types int, float
> etc. It also provides access to int_fast8_t, int_fast16_t, etc. of stdint.h.
>
> Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not work
> with cross compilations. (It
Hi Tobias,
What is the proper way to obtain this information?
I fear the answer to this question is "there's no way". We already
discussed that a few months ago, at the thread starting here: http://
gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00346.html From private discussion,
with Paul Brook & Josep
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070307 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070307/
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
