Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 09/08/2007 17:19:13:
>
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed?
struct-reorg + ipa-type-escape changes are awaiting for response.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-0
Hi,
The attached RFC-patch adds a pass to hoist common code that is found in
all case labels of a switch expression (PR11832).
I get an ICE in tree_redirect_edge_and_branch() though, so my question
is if i forgot some kind of needed fixup?
TIA for any pointers..
The ICE (against r127248 in case
Hello:
This is a compensation to Simon G. Best's build report
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01402.html).
As Simon G. Best mentioned, after final-install, gcc's shared libs
should be configed as below:
1. add the line '/usr/local/lib' to the end of '/etc/ld.so.conf';
2. run 'ldconfig'
Also on ppc64.
Revital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 17/08/2007 09:55:38:
>
> I want to flag that some changes in GCC 4.3.0 20070816 rev 127568:
>
> * Makefile.in (REVISION): New.
> (REVISION_c): New.
> (REVISION_s): New.
> (version.o): Also depend on $(REVISION). Ad
Am Freitag, 10. August 2007 schrieben Sie:
> To me, very fast (millions of lines a second) lexical analyzers are
> trivial to write by hand, and I really don't see the point of tools,
> and certainly not the utility of any theory in writing such code.
> If anything the formalism of a finite state m
Revital1 Eres wrote:
Also on ppc64.
Everywhere!
Paolo.
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Revital1 Eres wrote:
>
>>Also on ppc64.
>>
>>
> Everywhere!
The file is only updated by the new config/gcc_update script, so if you
update the first time it is not created. How about this:
2007-08-17 Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* M
Well, at least the culprit is easy to find!
2007-08-16 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile.in (REVISION): New.
(REVISION_c): New.
(REVISION_s): New.
(version.o): Also depend on $(REVISION). Add
-DREVISION=$(REVISION_s).
* version.c (version_st
On 17 August 2007 12:28, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Revital1 Eres wrote:
>>
>>> Also on ppc64.
>>>
>>>
>> Everywhere!
>
> The file is only updated by the new config/gcc_update script, so if you
> update the first time it is not created. How about t
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not clear about this, are we allowed to use gnu-specific features like
> $(wildcard ...) in this makefile?
Yes.
@item GNU make version 3.79.1 (or later)
You must have GNU make installed to build [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, S
On 8/9/07, Ollie Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I also haven't necessarily said what Ollie has proposed is a bad idea.
> > I have simply said the way he has come up with what he proposed is
> > not the way we should go about this. It may
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 01:27:39PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Revital1 Eres wrote:
> >
> >>Also on ppc64.
> >>
> >>
> > Everywhere!
>
> The file is only updated by the new config/gcc_update script, so if you
> update the first time it is not c
We start out with (eq (plus X A) 0):
simplify_comparison (code=EQ, pop0=0xbfd722b4, pop1=0xbfd722b0) at
/home/rask/cvssrc/ia16-gcc/gcc/combine.c:9915
(gdb) call debug_rtx (*pop0)
(plus:SI (reg/v:SI 59 [ b ])
(mem/c/i:SI (reg/f:SI 16 argp) [2 a+0 S4 A32]))
(gdb) call debug_rtx (*pop1)
(co
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are a lot of ways to handle this problem:
> 1) We could do a pass that breaks multiword sets into individual regs if
> some of those regs are dead. I guess the downside of this is that such
> insns may not match some patterns anymore.
>
> 2) We
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
pseudos that would map into more than 1 hardreg.
pseudo's are as wide as they need to be. When loc
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
>> to make reload/global happy.
>>
>> the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
>> pseudos that would map into more than 1 hardreg.
>>
>> pse
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is preassigning regs for
pseudos that would map into more than 1
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>> Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>>>
>>>
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local_alloc is
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:53:53PM +0530, Pranav Bhandarkar wrote:
> " internal compiler error: RTL check: expected code 'const_double' and
> mode 'VOID', have code 'const_double' and mode 'SF' in plus_constant,
> at explow.c:103"
[snip]
> Regret the rather verbose post.
It is not verbose enou
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> > In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
> > calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
> > calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE instead of UREC, it
> > would permit to use LIVE al
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 01:32:02PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 09 August 2007 13:25, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
>
> >All examples so far have had CONST_DOUBLE in the REG_EQUAL note.
>
> Yes, and? I don't see what you're getting at here.
Not necessarily a whole lot, but it's the o
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>
>>> In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
>>> calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
>>> calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE instead of UREC, it
>
On 17 August 2007 17:02, 'Rask Ingemann Lambertsen' wrote:
>
>What happened to the experiments you described at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg01178.html>? Emitting a no-op move
> of the (set (reg) (reg)) form won't work, but maybe something like
>
> (insn (use (reg) (expr_list:REG_E
Seongbae Park (???, ???) wrote:
> On 8/17/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>
>> we should talk. I am avail today. i am leaving on vacation tomorrow
>> for a week.
>>
>
> Please send me the patch before you leave (and please leave valinor
> turned on) - I'll give a look
On 8/17/07, Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> we should talk. I am avail today. i am leaving on vacation tomorrow
> for a week.
Please send me the patch before you leave (and please leave valinor
turned on) - I'll give a look while you're gone.
--
#pragma ident "Seongbae Park, com
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 09:32 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
> The problem comes where you have a store that uses 2 or more hard regs
> but one or more of those hardregs is unused.
>
> In a forwards scan, ALL of the set regs will interfere with anything
> live until the last set reg goes dead. In a b
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 12:01 -0400, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
In any case IRA can not use UREC because UREC is needed before IRA
calculates reg class info and the reg class info is needed for
calculation of UREC. If you manage to use LIVE inst
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
it looks like the backwards scan is not getting "enough" interferences
to make reload/global happy.
the case comes about because of way local
Hello all,
Several years ago in the gcc 3.3 time frame I looked into building cross
compilers using the current versions of gcc, glibc etc. for a number of
different systems. I quickly found that it was a quagmire. I inquired
of this list at that time and was told that the glibc hack was
pr
On 8/17/07, Stephen M. Kenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cross compiling works for me out of the box if done correctly. Yes I
have to compile GCC and glibc (or newlib) twice but I don't care as it
is all scripted.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Stephen M. Kenton wrote:
Hello all,
.
.
.
I realize that there are various "solutions" for specific
platforms. Dan Kegel's excellent crosstool and the cross-lfs website,
.
.
.
So, my open questions to the list are, what is/should be the preferred
way to bootstrap a cross compiler/glibc
"Stephen M. Kenton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, the question
> remains, why is the problem still there to be circumvented? Is there
> some secret opposition to easy use of these tools, is there some law
> of nature that prevents them from building, is there some good
> technical reason
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 8/17/07, Stephen M. Kenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cross compiling works for me out of the box if done correctly. Yes I
have to compile GCC and glibc (or newlib) twice but I don't care as it
is all scripted.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Great! Scripting is wonderful and
John L. Kulp wrote:
> Shouldn't the last (optional) argument be (1) const and (2) a reference
> (rather than a potentially very expensive copying call-by-value)? Among
> other things, if you have a type declared with alignment attributes, it
> will fail on this. I notice the MSVC implementation h
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070817 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070817/
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
I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and
HP-UX platforms. The failure is:
x.c: In function 'foo':
x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.h
Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and
> HP-UX platforms. The failure is:
>
> x.c: In function 'foo':
> x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with preproces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/08/2007 03:19:48:
> I noticed that gcc.dg/sms-antideps.c is failing on my IA64 Linux and
> HP-UX platforms. The failure is:
>
> x.c: In function 'foo':
> x.c:25: internal compiler error: in gen_sub2_insn, at optabs.c:4640
> Please submit a full bug report,
> with p
38 matches
Mail list logo
