On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 22:51 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > >The idea behind that tool is great, I only wish the authors had
> > >taken a class in portable shell scripting before. It's not that
> > >all the world's a Vax these days...
>
> > Patches welcome, I guess.
Richard Earnshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's no need to hack everything up. As long as you have bash
> installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on *BSD
> machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash.
Or (pd)?ksh, for that matter.
Andreas.
--
Andreas
Hi James,
Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin.
I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please.
$ cygcheck -V
cygcheck version 1.94
System Checker for Cygwin
Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Red Hat,
Inc.
Hello this is Linda Taylor, and I wanted to try and reach you in the office
this week.
I am the secretary in the Business Management Department for CR Services and
Solutions.
I wanted to talk with you this week because, we are doing free analyses for
companies to produce additional savings a
GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced
and uploaded later today.
Therefore, the GCC 4.2.0 branch is now frozen to all checkins, without
my explicit permission.
Zdenek, I would still be interested in a fix for PR31360. From the
audit trail, it looks like your patc
> GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced
> and uploaded later today.
Bad timing I'd think, Ian's controversial TYPE_MAX_VALUE patch is still there.
--
Eric Botcazou
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Zdenek, I would still be interested in a fix for PR31360. From the
> audit trail, it looks like your patch for this PR on mainline causes
> another problem (PR 31676), and that you are not working on PR 31676
> because you cannot build for powerpc-linux-gnu. (That is what
>
> I'd rather remove this "hack" and use the inliners code size estimator, like
> that patch from early 2005 (attached)...
Uh yes, I think it is way to go (and additionally making -O2 to
autoinline small functions like -Os does).
The patch would be OK if it still works ;) Even if CSiBE regress
hi,
I'm doing trying to write some optimized code for AMD dual core
opetron processor.But things are getting no where.I've installed
Fedora 5 with 2.6 series Linux kernel and 4 series GCC
Following are few lines of code which are consuming close to 100
cycles.Yes this is not the forum for such
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> GCC 4.2.0 RC2 is building now, and, if all goes well, will be announced
>> and uploaded later today.
>
> Bad timing I'd think, Ian's controversial TYPE_MAX_VALUE patch is still there.
Unlucky, but true.
The most important thing, however, is that the branch is now frozen:
On 30 April 2007 20:11, kernel coder wrote:
> Following are few lines of code which are consuming close to 100
> cycles.Yes this is not the forum for such questions but i think people
> on linux kernel and GCC are best to answer such type of questions.
If it's an issue caused by gcc generating
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070430 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070430/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> Gcov normally puts the files where it writes profiling information in
> the source directory. In a cross-development environment, that directory
> isn't always available.
So I discovered when debugging testsuite failures on a remote target :
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:06 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > So, I think there's a middle ground between "exactly the same passes on
> > all targets" and "use Acovea for every CPU to pick what -O2 means".
> > Using Acovea to reveal some of the suprising, but beneficial results,
> > seems like a fin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygcheck version 1.90
Compiled on Jan 31 2007
How do I get a later version of Cygwin ?
1.90 is the current release version. It seems unlikely that later trial
versions have a patch for the stdio.h conflict with C99, or changes
headers to avoid warnings which by d
On 5/1/07, Aaron Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi James,
> Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin.
I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please.
> $ cygcheck -V
> cygcheck version 1.94
> System Checker for Cygwin
> Copyright 1998, 1999,
On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 19:26 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Has any of the Acovea research demonstrated whether there actually is any
> such thing as a "good default set of flags in all cases"? If the results
> obtained diverge significantly according to the nature/coding
> style/architecture/other u
17 matches
Mail list logo
