On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We still have the nasty aliasing problems:
> >
> > PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co...
>
> It's not clear from the PR that this is either an aliasing bu
Hello,
Kumar Rangarajan wrote:
I am interested in understanding the limitations/optimization
opportunities of the IA64 version of gcc. I read from the projects list
on the gcc site about the proposed optimizations for the IA64 platform,
I see that some of the requests were from 2001 or so time
> Because of the famous duplicated declaration problem
This sentence is reminding me that I forgot to send the following update:
As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
and my current patch is trigge
> Does anyone have a template/example autoconf project that is already
> setup with the needed gcc headers + build infrastructure to create a GCC
> plugin?
The talk at the GCC Summit mentioned a handful of existing plug-ins and
Sean spoke about them all being autoconfiscated. I would recommend
ei
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this
> point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can
> release, per the FSF's instructions.
Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the
var
> > Because of the famous duplicated declaration problem
>
> This sentence is reminding me that I forgot to send the following update:
>
> As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
> update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
> and my current p
>> As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
>> update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
>> and my current patch is triggering a very long string of
> Huh, still I would be interested in seeing the patch.
It's based on Michal Matz's patch at
h
> >> As I said I was going to give it a shot over the week-end, here's an
> >> update on this: it won't make it into 4.3, because it's a big change
> >> and my current patch is triggering a very long string of
> > Huh, still I would be interested in seeing the patch.
>
> It's based on Michal Matz'
Hi,
In response to the march options, I tried to use both
"-march=athlon-xp -g -O2" and "-march=i686 -g -O2" but it does not
like it. It still gives the error message about the 386 commands.
When i use the ./configure command the march option is accepted as
part of using gcc as it displays th
On 9/5/07, mandeep singh bhambra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> In response to the march options, I tried to use both
> "-march=athlon-xp -g -O2" and "-march=i686 -g -O2" but it does not
> like it. It still gives the error message about the 386 commands.
>
> When i use the ./configure comma
Jan Hubicka wrote:
Thanks, I sent the patch for testing and lets see if it solves the
problem.
If the testsuite passes, and you intend to commit this, please add a FIXME.
Cheers,
- Tobi
Honza
Index: trans-decl.c
===
--- trans-d
Ben Elliston wrote:
>> Does anyone have a template/example autoconf project that is already
>> setup with the needed gcc headers + build infrastructure to create a GCC
>> plugin?
>
> The talk at the GCC Summit mentioned a handful of existing plug-ins and
> Sean spoke about them all being autoconfi
On 9/5/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > We still have the nasty aliasing problems:
> > >
> > > PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co..
On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > We still have the nasty aliasing problems:
> > > >
> > > > P
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this
>> point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can
>> release, per the FSF's instructions.
>
> Apart from anything else, we are still
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the
> > various exceptions in use so installed headers and runtime libraries can
> > be converted
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:54:08AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Personally, I don't see how that's a prob
> The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves
Why? I thought GPLv2 and GPLv3 are "compatible".
Hi.
I've had no luck with my builds since yesterday. The applied-then-reverted
patches regarding the tree_ssa_operands.c files caused build errors
yesterday. I was hopeful that the reversion would resolve my build errors,
but I'm sorry to report that my builds are still failing now with
a bootstra
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:18:36PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves
>
> Why? I thought GPLv2 and GPLv3 are "compatible".
They are not; each requires that the work as a whole be licensed the same
as the individual file. H
Thanks for looking at this.
Segher Boessenkool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> + /* Allow mixed writable and read-only objects in named
> sections. */
> + if ((sect->common.flags & SECTION_NAMED) != 0
> + && ((sect->common.flags ^ flags) & ~SECTION_DECLARED)
> +
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The SECTION_NAMED check is redundant; this function only deals with
> named sections. FWIW, I think it would be cleaner to put:
>
> if (((sect->common.flags ^ flags) & SECTION_WRITE) != 0)
> sect->common.flags |= SECTION_WRITE;
>
> befo
In cgraphunit.c there is a mention of "varpool_finalize_variable",
which doesn't exist. I think this should be "varpool_finalize_decl"
-- no problem, this one I can fix.
However, there is also a mention of the non-existing
varpool_finalize_function. Should this also be varpool_finalize_decl?
To
DJ Delorie wrote:
> Also, we never decided if "undo" was worth the extra overhead. The
> code is in the patch, but ifdef'd out.
>
>> URL, please?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg01317.html
It looks to me like this probably isn't quite ready for prime-time; I do
think we'd want
> It looks to me like this probably isn't quite ready for prime-time;
> I do think we'd want to make the push/pop stuff fully reliable,
> including warnings emitted from the middle-end.
push-pop around functions won't be reliable until we have the file
location thing, so we can map a file:line to
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070905 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070905/
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
Hello,
On my simple RISC architecture I am seeing suboptimal instruction
scheduling with GCC-4.1.1 caused by the way registers are getting
allocated. I am looking for suggestions on what could be wrong in my
description to cause the poor allocation.
More details --
Registers r3 to r12 are volati
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >Thanks, I sent the patch for testing and lets see if it solves the
> >problem.
>
> If the testsuite passes, and you intend to commit this, please add a FIXME.
Sadly, the testsuite regressions don't seems to be fixed. I will try to
figure out tomorrow why the function is s
I want GCC to compile c/c++ code into VM instructions. Looking at GJC
as a reference, I didn't see a Java machine back-end MD file. Java
isn't a back-end in gcc/config.
For a new VM back-end, does it have to be put in gcc/config? Also,
would a configure target have to be made for the new VM
"Matt Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The problem is, that though the loads can be optimized by pipelining
> them. The register allocator has created a dependency by using only r3
> and r4, instead of using the other volatiles.
Try using -frename-registers.
Ian
Since yesterday ~16h GMT boostraping is broken on Darwin8 at stage1:
...
/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/./gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/darwin_buildw/./gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/powerpc-apple-darwin8/bin/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/powerpc-apple-darwin8/lib/ -isystem
/opt/gcc/gcc4.3w/powerpc-apple-darwin8/include -isystem
Mike wrote:
I want GCC to compile c/c++ code into VM instructions. Looking at GJC
as a reference, I didn't see a Java machine back-end MD file. Java
isn't a back-end in gcc/config.
AFAIK, gcj can compile JVM code (ie javac-compiled .class bytecode
files) but don't produce them.
There exis
> Sadly, the testsuite regressions don't seems to be fixed. I will try to
> figure out tomorrow why the function is still being inlined.
The test case gfortran.dg/do_3.F90 pass with -fno-strict-overflow
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2007-09/msg00116.html).
I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org
32 matches
Mail list logo
