On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64
> >-O2 -fno-tree-salias
> >-Os -fno-tree-salias
>
>
> Known. This is normally the first place we build aliasing info.
> Unless we have a compelling reason to have this flag, we sh
Este correo ha sido cambiado, favor enviar a:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gracias
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Peter Bergner, Andrew MacLeod, Vladimir Makarov, Seongbae Park,
and Ken Zadeck as GCC Register Allocation Reviewers.
Please join me in congratulating Peter, Andrew, Vlad, Seongbae and
Ken on their new role. Ple
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64
> > >-O2 -fno-tree-salias
> > >-Os -fno-tree-salias
> >
> >
> > Known. This is normally the first place we build aliasing info.
On 23 Sep 2007 09:13:59 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 9/23/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > ># all tests fail with ICE in verify_curr_properties; -m32/-m64
> > > >-O2 -fno-tree-salias
> > > >-Os -fno-tr
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We've got a test case with gcc 4.2 for which compilation time goes
> > from nine minutes to 30 seconds when we use that option. I know the
> > code is much better in mainline. Still, I would prefer to keep the
> > option unless we are certain th
On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > We've got a test case with gcc 4.2 for which compilation time goes
> > > from nine minutes to 30 seconds when we use that option. I know the
> > > code is much better
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Well, if the -fno-tree-salias flag now causes wrong-code bugs then I
> > certainly agree that it should be eliminated.
>
> I didn't say that ;) But I cert
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, if the -fno-tree-salias flag now causes wrong-code bugs then I
> > > certainly agr
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Well, if the -fno-t
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Ta
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Am I wrong? I have the same problem
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PRO
On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I am not so concerned about efficiency ATM, I am trying to build SSA at O0.
>
> If you only want simple SSA you should look at doing expansion after
> early optimization.
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I believe Andrew's right and the strcpy case is valid, but you do have
a point. I think this should be rejected:
struct A { int i; };
struct B { A get() { return A(); } };
int main ()
{
B b;
b.get().i = 0;
// int& error = b.get().i;
}
What about somethin
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 23 Sep 2007 09:54:29 -0700, Ian Lance Ta
On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 23/09/2007, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On 9/23/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PRO
Hi All,
I wanted to install gcc-3.4 on my ppc-linux m/c. I tried cross
compiling, but cought up with error which i'm not familiar with as i'm
new here.
The following is the error log on make:
-
[EMAIL
18 matches
Mail list logo