Ok, since I didn't get any pointers in this area.
I have a more generic question now to everybody:-
I am new to gcc development as well as its architecture. I am looking forward
to fix the -fPIC issue for Interix. As of now I found that a shared library
compiled with fPIC crashes due to some wr
> I don't have these around, and I mistakenly updated my tree, so the
> numbers below are, unfortunately, incomparable to the numbers above.
> The disturbing fact is that mainline seems to be significantly slower
> now than it was in my previous tests (from just a few days ago), and
> the slowdown
On 3/23/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> There are still a number of GCC 4.2.0 P1s, including the following which
> are new in GCC 4.2.0 (i.e., did not occur in GCC 4.1.x), together with
> -- as near as I can tell, based on Bugzilla -- the responsibility parties
On 3/23/07, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't have these around, and I mistakenly updated my tree, so the
> numbers below are, unfortunately, incomparable to the numbers above.
> The disturbing fact is that mainline seems to be significantly slower
> now than it was in my prev
This was on
Windows XP/SP2 cygwin on pentium4 single i686:
binutils 20060817-1
bison2.3-1
cygwin 1.5.24-2
dejagnu 20021217-2
expect 20030128-1
gcc 3.4.4-3
gcc-ada 3.4.4-3
gcc-g++ 3.4.4
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Mike Stump wrote:
> I did some quick C measurements compiling expr.o from the top of the
> tree, with an -O0 built compiler with checking:
> [...]
> I'll accept a 0.15% compiler.
Hi Mike,
When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86 would
get hosed wo
On 3/23/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86 would
get hosed worse because it's 16-bit accesses are not as efficient as it's
8 or 32 bit ones.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00763.html
I assume you tested on Darw
On 23 March 2007 12:00, Christian Joensson wrote:
> For some reason, yet unknow to me, I don't seem to be able to
> bootstrap gcc trunk on cygwin due to some issue with configuring in
> intl:
It's generic.
> checking for C compiler default output file name... configure: error:
> C compiler
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 09:29:05AM -0400, Doug Gregor wrote:
> On 3/23/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86 would
> >get hosed worse because it's 16-bit accesses are not as efficient as it's
> >8 or 32 bit ones.
> >
> >
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On 19 Mar 2007 19:12:35 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar justifications for yet another small% of slowdown have been
>> given routinely for over 5 years now. small% build up; and when they
>> build up, they don't not to be con
Mayank Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, since I didn't get any pointers in this area.
> I have a more generic question now to everybody:-
>
> I am new to gcc development as well as its architecture. I am looking
> forward to fix the -fPIC issue for Interix. As of now I found that a share
This is the beta release of binutils 2.17.50.0.14 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2007 0322 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
ACX_BUGURL has
[case "$withval" in
yes) AC_MSG_ERROR([bug URL not specified]) ;;
no) REPORT_BUGS_TO="";
REPORT_BUGS_TEXI=""
;;
*) REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$withval>"
REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $withval | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
;;
esac]
On 23/03/07, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GCC being vastly a volunteer project,
Actually, if you monitored gcc-patches and the subversion commits for
a while, you will realise that that statement is factually wrong. Most
of the code comes from individuals that are paid to work in GCC
> It assumes there is no @ in $1. Shouldn't be
>
> REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
Seems fair, but please check all the users, they might be escaping the
value already.
Paolo
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> On 23/03/07, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > GCC being vastly a volunteer project,
>
> Actually, if you monitored gcc-patches and the subversion commits for
> a while, you will realise that that statement is factually wrong. Most
> of the code com
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, H. J. Lu wrote:
> It assumes there is no @ in $1. Shouldn't be
>
> REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
Feel free to refine it. It's just there are about three possible users of
these macros in the GCC and src trees and I expected them all to wish to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
>Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
>efficient code? :-)
>But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Tobias Burnus and Brooks Moses as Fortran maintainers.
Please join me in congratulating Tobias and Brooks on their new role.
Tobias and Brooks, please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Ayal Zaks as Modulo Scheduler maintainer.
Please join me in congratulating Ayal on his new role.
Ayal, please update your listings in the MAINTAINERS file.
Happy hacking!
David
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 04:57:03PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > It assumes there is no @ in $1. Shouldn't be
> >
> > REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
>
> Feel free to refine it. It's just there are about three possible users
> In which case, the companies concerned, rather than the individuals,
> are volunteers: they have no contractual obligation to the FSF. Marc
> Espie's argument stands.
I don't see that. They are "volunteers" in terms of what they choose to
contribute to the FSF, but not at all such in terms of
On 23/03/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In which case, the companies concerned, rather than the individuals,
> are volunteers: they have no contractual obligation to the FSF. Marc
> Espie's argument stands.
I don't see that. They are "volunteers" in terms of what they choose t
On 23 March 2007 17:01, Marc Espie wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>> On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
>
>> Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
>> efficient code? :-
"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$1>"
> - REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{$1}"
> + REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
You need to quote $1.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:55:38PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$1>"
> > - REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{$1}"
> > + REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
>
> You need to quote $1.
I treated it the same as
REP
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 23/03/07, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > In which case, the companies concerned, rather than the individuals,
| > > are volunteers: they have no contractual obligation to the FSF. Marc
| > > Espie's argument stands.
| >
| > I
On 23 March 2007 18:11, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:55:38PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$1>"
>>> - REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{$1}"
>>> + REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{`echo $1 | sed 's/@/@@/g'`}"
>>
>> You n
On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86
would
get hosed worse because it's 16-bit accesses
I'm happy to have experts make predictions. I'm happy to look at
real numbers to double check things. If an expert can
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:20:10PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23 March 2007 18:11, H. J. Lu wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 06:55:38PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> REPORT_BUGS_TO="<$1>"
> >>> - REPORT_BUGS_TEXI="@uref{$1}"
>
Hello,
I would like to submit the following project for Google Summer of Code:
Propagating array data dependence information from Tree-SSA to RTL
Synopsis:
The RTL array data dependence analyzer was written specifically for swing
modulo scheduling (SMS) implementation in GCC. It is overly c
Hello, I want to propose a project for Google Summer of Code on title
"New static scheduling heuristic". I hope that Vlad Makarov from
Redhat or Andrey Belevantsev from ISP RAS will menthor this
application.
I will appreciate any feedback and will try to answer any questions
regarding my applicatio
Please look at the patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00855.html
It was intended for cygwin/mingw but should work for interix too if
TARGET_CYGMING
is defined.
The patch needs some changes in GNU linker in order for it to work correctly.
(See the thread in gcc-patches for detail
I was able to successfully build gcc-4.2.0-20070316 on
the following architectures:
For thse architectures I used --enable-languages=c
alphaev56-unknown-linux-gnu
alphaev68-dec-osf5.1b
powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0
sparc-sun-solaris2.8
For these architectures I used --enable
I encourage people to post Summer of Code student applications to this
mailing list for comments.
But I also want to say clearly that applications must also be
submitted at http://code.google.com/soc/. And after submitting your
application there, you should check periodically to see if there are
Hello world
it seems I hosed my developer's bugzilla account by changing
my E-Mail address there from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- I can no longer change the e-mail address back
- I no longer have maintainer's rights on bugzilla.
Could somebody change it back, please?
Thanks a lot
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf into generating 100x
> faster code 90% of the time. Maybe prebundling answers for the
> common targets...
Ek, imake! :-)
Every time I've played with precomputing cache answers
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I realized that I am still not stating my position very clearly. I
>> don't think we should make any extra effort to make this code work:
>> after all, the code is undefined. I just think 1) we should not
>> insert a trap; 2) we should not ICE.
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070323 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070323/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Phil Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 10:51:06AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf into generating 100x
> > faster code 90% of the time. Maybe prebundling answers for the
> > common targets...
>
> Ek, imake! :-)
>
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
Yeah. The ideal, I think, would be to have configure just record the
options the user passed it, and then have the majority of actual
checks integrated into th
Hi,
I managed to commit a ChangeLog entry that included the entire patch,
and a change to ifcvt.c that shouldn't have been commited. I use a
little script for checkins, but I passed the wrong file names to it.
I've fixed both issues, but anyone who has checked out or updated from
SVN between now
Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> I realized that I am still not stating my position very clearly. I
> >> don't think we should make any extra effort to make this code work:
> >> after all, the code is undefined. I just think 1) we
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 23/03/2007 19:04:57:
>I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
> appointed Ayal Zaks as Modulo Scheduler maintainer.
>
>Please join me in congratulating Ayal on his new role.
> Ayal, please update your listings in the MAINTAIN
Now that the gcc 4.2 release is getting closer, I am resending this
e-mail from Martin Michlmayr. I've removed options which I believe
are sufficiently internal to not require mention in the changes file,
and I've removed options which are now documented there.
Many of our users only discover new
(crossposting to fortran@)
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Now that the gcc 4.2 release is getting closer, I am resending this
e-mail from Martin Michlmayr. I've removed options which I believe
are sufficiently internal to not require mention in the changes file,
and I've removed options which are now
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> GCC itself relies on wrapv semantics. As does glibc. And
> >> coreutils. And GNU tar. And Python. I'm sure there are
> >> many other significant programs. I don't have time to do a
> >> comprehensive survey right now.
> >
> > Where does GCC rely o
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The new option -fstrict-overflow tells gcc that it can assume the
strict signed overflow semantics prescribed by the language standard.
This option is enabled by default at -O2 and higher. Using
-fno-strict-overflow will tell gcc that it can not assume that signed
overfl
> On 3/14/07, Dorit Nuzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have a '{2,2}' expression (vector initializer) propagated by dom
into a
> > BIT_FIELD_REF:
> >
> > before (bug.c.105t.vrp2):
> >
> > vector long int vect_cst_.47;
> > vect_cst_.47_66 = {2, 2};
> > D.2103_
49 matches
Mail list logo
