This is genopinit.c:92 (sdivv_optab) (in revision 127595).
I read this as "the next mode must be a full integer mode; add a v if it
is a float mode". Which is doubly strange as this is the only place
where $V is used.
Am I missing something here, or is this a bug?
Jan, I'm converting the call graph builder code for tuples and in the
process I ran into calls to lang_hooks.callgraph.analyze_expr(). From
what I've seen:
1- The third argument to that function (DECL), is not used by any callback.
2- In fact, if it was used, we'd ICE because the function signat
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think I prefer Richard's suggestion of not branching until we're ready to
> make the .0 release. The effect should be the same except that people don't
> have to deal with checking patches in on the branch vs. the trunk until after
> 4.3.0 goes out.
I
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jason Merrill wrote:
I think I prefer Richard's suggestion of not branching until we're ready to
make the .0 release. The effect should be the same except that people don't
have to deal with checking patches in on the branch vs. the trunk until afte
> >> I think I prefer Richard's suggestion of not branching until we're
> >> ready to make the .0 release. The effect should be the same
> >> except that people don't have to deal with checking patches in on
> >> the branch vs. the trunk until after 4.3.0 goes out.
> >>
> >
> > I like this a
On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Now that GCC is in stage 4.3, I think we'd all be in agreement that it
> would be nice to keep this stage short and get a release out.
Let me suggest something which is going sound a little crazy.
Create a beta that is released now and th
> Jan, I'm converting the call graph builder code for tuples and in the
> process I ran into calls to lang_hooks.callgraph.analyze_expr(). From
> what I've seen:
>
> 1- The third argument to that function (DECL), is not used by any callback.
>
> 2- In fact, if it was used, we'd ICE because the f
Several options reported by --help=optimize are not documented in the
GCC Manual (via invoke.texi) but are still reported with
--help=optimize,^undocumented. Here are the options along with the
people who checked in the entries to common.opt:
-fipa-cp steven
-fipa-matrix-reorg
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now that GCC is in stage 4.3, I think we'd all be in agreement that it
would be nice to keep this stage short and get a release out.
Let me suggest something which is going sound a little crazy.
Create a beta
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Create a beta that is released now and then release one once (or
> twice) a month until we release 4.3. This is seperate from a release
> candidate and the snapshot. The beta is get attention from some folks
> that would not have us
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Jack Lloyd wrote:
> I would like this. It's common for snapshots to fail to build (at
> least on my machines), which is definitely a discouragement from
> trying them too often, and by the time the RCs hit it's way too late
> to do much about any problems b
On 11/1/07, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Once we hit the target of 100 open PRs,( or whenever we would have
> > originally cut a stage 3 release branch), we firm up stage 3 so that
> > *really* only bugfixes go in. Then we work toward a release
> > candidate, etc etc.?
>
> I gu
On 11/1/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 01:55:04PM -0400, Jack Lloyd wrote:
> > I would like this. It's common for snapshots to fail to build (at
> > least on my machines), which is definitely a discouragement from
> > trying them too often, and by the tim
The mipsel-linux target had been clean for C and C++ (except for
mayalias-[23].c) at r129657:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-10/msg01332.html
g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C started failing by r129727:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-10/msg01385.html
And gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr3372
Jack Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Create a beta that is released now and then release one once (or
twice) a month until we release 4.3. This is seperate from a release
candidate and the snapshot. The beta is get attention from some folks
that w
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Well, there are installable gcc 4.3 builds for openSUSE available,
> and I know of at least Debian packages in experimental. I wouldn't
> be surprised if Fedora also has gcc 4.3 packages ready.
FreeBSD also has packages (and of course the source ports
Hello!
g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C started failing by r129727:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-10/msg01385.html
This one was introduced by adjusting the scan for the correct string.
x86_64 doesn't fail because the test is XFAILed for this target.
Otherwise, this is PR 26726.
Uros
$ du -s /opt/gcc4*/include/c++/4.*/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/
33793 /opt/gcc41320071029/include/c++/4.1.3/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/
64743 /opt/gcc42320071031/include/c++/4.2.3/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/
181 /opt/gcc43020071026/include/c++/4.3.0/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bits/
In /opt/gcc4*/include/c++/4.*
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> What is there inside of fat .gch file? What means the .gch file?
This is a question for the gcc-help list, not gcc. The latter is
for the development *of* GCC, not the development *with* GCC.
You can easily find the answer to your question by Googling fo
On 11/1/07, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > I think I prefer Richard's suggestion of not branching until we're ready to
> > make the .0 release. The effect should be the same except that people don't
> > have to deal with checking patches i
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Britt Snodgrass wrote:
> I've noticed that the GCC changes pages
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html and
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html ) are not usually updated for
> Ada and/or GNAT. It anyone designated as a maintainer for this?
Yes, Geert, Robert, and Arn
Hi,
does anybody know if this patch ever got merged into GCC, or if UTF-16
is currently supported?
ftp://ftp.sap.com/pub/i18N/utf16/ugcc-3.2/README
Tom, I saw you replied to this thread, so maybe you know about this:
http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/2001-07/msg00064.html
I believe the patch
I haven't followed any developments relating to TR19769 in WG14 after its
publication in detail; has WG14 yet given an answer on what should be done
with u'C' where C represents a single character that requires a surrogate
pair to represent in UTF-16 (to name one noted place where the TR
unders
--
1. Unpack p7zip_4.55_src_all.tar.bz2
2. Edit CPP/7zip/Bundles/Alone/makefile adding
LOCAL_FLAGS+=-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -march=i686 -msse3
3. time make
4. strip --strip-all bin/7za ; ls -l bin/7za ; size bin/7za
5. tim
From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:34:33 -0400
> I think what is more important is the resulting binary -- does it
> run faster?
The answer to this is situational dependant.
For example, for me, the speed of compilation at -O2 is very important
because I'm constantly
On 11/1/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The compile's and run's time of gcc-3.4.6 is the fastest, and i don't know
> why the modern gcc4's family is little bit slower than the older gcc3's
> family.
I would think it'd be only natural for a newer generational compiler
to require more
--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 22:34:33 -0400
>
> > I think what is more important is the resulting
> binary -- does it
> > run faster?
>
> The answer to this is situational dependant.
>
> For example, for me, the speed
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:42:52AM +1000, skaller wrote:
>
> DO you know how thread local variables are handled?
> [Not using Posix TLS I hope .. that would be a disaster]
Would you please elaborate? What's wrong with the
POSIX TLS implementation? Do you know of any studies?
I ask, because we
28 matches
Mail list logo
