gcc regression on Darwin

While regtesting my build of the 20070330 snapshot (Darwin7), I got a lot (~100) of regressions: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/memcpy-chk.c, ..., gcc.c-torture/execute/built-in-setjmp.c. Looking at the list, I have found that this has started on 20070325 for Darwin8: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-te

Re: gcc regression on Darwin

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dominique Dhumieres) writes: > If yes what would be the best format? See . Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756

RE: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote: > Hi > I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross > compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++ > and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing > our operating system o

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote: > On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote: > > Hi > > I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross > > compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++ > > and makes extensive use of the stl libr

RE: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On 01 April 2007 12:59, Paul Brook wrote: > On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote: >>> Hi >>> I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross >>> compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c+

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook: If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already obsolete release (3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x altogether and going straight to gcc4.1/4.2. Many of the improvements in c+

Re: How can I get VRP information for an RTX?

On 4/1/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am looking at how the MIPS backend handles division. For the compiler configuration in question (mipsel-linux) division operations trap on division by zero. This is handled in mips_output_division in mips.c where we unconditionally emit a cond

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On 4/1/07, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook: > If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already > obsolete release > (3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x > altogether and go

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

We have some real numbers about these new errors now. I've compiled the whole Debian archive in the last week for Gelato to test GCC 4.3 on IA64. Out of just slightly under 7000 packages in Debian, we have the following new failures: missing newline: 42 error: "xxx" redefined: 33 extra tokens at

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

Martin Michlmayr wrote: ... - The "no newline" and "xxx redfined" pedwarnings should be converted into normal warnings. Rationale: no newline doesn't harm anyone and there are quite a few programs that would fail because of an error that many agree is too strict. Redefining something with

re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

Ganesh wrote: I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++ and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing our operating system or processor architecture (so portability is not a ve

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

Zack Weinberg wrote: Martin Michlmayr wrote: ... - The "no newline" and "xxx redfined" pedwarnings should be converted into normal warnings. Rationale: no newline doesn't harm anyone and there are quite a few programs that would fail because of an error that many agree is too strict. Red

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

Richard Guenther wrote: At least you'd have the chance that reported bugs may eventually get fixed - with a 3.x (or even 4.0.x) release there's no chance of that unless you are willing to pay (and find) someone to do it. Which of course is one possibility, it is not always clear that updating

VAX backend status

Over the past several weeks, I've revamped the VAX backend: - fixed various bugs - improved 64bit move, add, subtract code. - added patterns for ffs, bswap16, bswap32, sync_lock_test_and_set, and sync_lock_release - modified it to generate PIC code. - fixed the dwarf2 output so it is r

Re: How can I get VRP information for an RTX?

On 4/1/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am looking at how the MIPS backend handles division. For the compiler configuration in question (mipsel-linux) division operations trap on division by zero. This is handled in mips_output_division in mips.c where we unconditionally emit a cond

Re: How can I get VRP information for an RTX?

Andrew Pinski wrote: On 4/1/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I am looking at how the MIPS backend handles division. For the compiler configuration in question (mipsel-linux) division operations trap on division by zero. This is handled in mips_output_division in mips.c where we uncon

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

* Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-01 08:30]: > This therefore needs to stay a pedwarn at least for the case where the > redefinition comes from a #define in the source. It's not clear to me > whether the diagnostics you're talking about are from a redefinition > via -D on the command li

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

On 4/1/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: * Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-01 08:30]: > This therefore needs to stay a pedwarn at least for the case where the > redefinition comes from a #define in the source. It's not clear to me > whether the diagnostics you're talking

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

Ugh. That puts us in the position of having to decide whether command line definitions "count" as previous definitions for 6.10.3p3. 6.10.3p*2*. zw

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

Zack Weinberg wrote: Ugh. That puts us in the position of having to decide whether command line definitions "count" as previous definitions for 6.10.3p3. I'm inclined to think that they do, or rather, that saying they don't involves more bending of the language than I am comfortable with. I c

Re: Extension for a throw-like C++ qualifier

Maybe that the option you suggest This is best done with something like -fstatic-exception-specifications or maybe - Wexception-specifications -Werror. is ideal, but it seems to me not practical at all. Every stuff using the throw qualifier as specified in the standards will not work. If an in

Re: error: "no newline at end of file"

On 4/1/07, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zack Weinberg wrote: It's not bending the language, the standard has nothing whatever to say about -D. I see no reason not to be completely permissive wrt -D if it is going to make transition smoother. The thing is, the standard does not read "

Re: How can I get VRP information for an RTX?

On 4/1/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The issue is that for some things (the java front-end) we need the trapping behavior. I just want to optimize it if the divisor is known to be non-zero. VRP knows, but by the time we generate the code it seems that we have forgotten. The java

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook: > > >If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already > >obsolete release > >(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

> > Many of the improvements in c++ code generation were as a result of > > tree-ssa, you only get with 4.x. On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > It is however a bigger step change, and a correspondingly bigger risk. > There are arguments in favour of not running with th

Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x

On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Joe Buck wrote: On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook: If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already obsolete release (3.3) seems a strange choice. At

RE: Information regarding -fPIC support for Interix gcc

Hi Murali/Everybody 1: I am keen on understanding how does the offset of L32 from _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ generated ? I mean if assembly is Movl [EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx,%eax),%eax then how does is gets converted to mov 0xbd14(%eax,%ebx,1),%eax. I guessed that L32 is at start of .rodata sectio