Hi guys,
I spent a little time recently researching ways to reduce the number of
unique named relocations that must be processed at dlopen time for large
C++ libraries[1]. Apologies for spamming all 3 lists like this, but it
touches all 3 projects.
Since almost all function reloca
While rebuilding gcc I got the following failure:
/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/./prev-gcc/
-B/opt/gcc/gcc4.4w/i686-apple-darwin9/bin/ -c -g -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer
-DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wold-style-definitio
This is due to revision 133828 and fixed by the following patch:
--- ../_gcc_clean/gcc/fwprop.c 2008-04-02 12:12:57.0 +0200
+++ gcc/fwprop.c2008-04-02 13:44:07.0 +0200
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@
PR_HANDLE_MEM is set when the source of the propagation was not
anothe
amihud bruchim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I found a memory leak on regcomp function - gcc-4.4.2 (i used Memory
> validator tool to confirm it) .
regcomp is part of glibc (or whatever C library you are using). It is
not part of gcc. For more information, including where to report
bugs, plea
Michael Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since almost all function relocations of this type are inside vtables,
> I implemented a new way of relocating vtables. This is a new
> '.suse.vtrelocs' section.
It's an interesting idea. Some comments:
* Use GNU instead of SUSE, as this is for
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * It seems that this is not backward compatible--an executable built
> in this way will not work if the dynamic linker does not know about
> it. The section should have the SHF_OS_NONCONFORMING bit set.
I wonder if it could be made backwards com
Hi Ian / Andi,
On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 07:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> * Use GNU instead of SUSE, as this is for the GNU tools.
Ah yes; you noticed the subliminal advertising ;-) If you're happy for
me to trample on the GNU section namespace that's fine, but I hesitate
to tread there
> It's certainly possible; of course it looses you any size savings. I
If it's all in one place and only on disk it doesn't really matter doesn't it?
Even if loaded into memory as long as it is read in one block without
much seeking it shouldn't be that bad.
Backwards compatibility is alwa
Michael Meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2008-04-02 at 07:56 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> * Use GNU instead of SUSE, as this is for the GNU tools.
>
> Ah yes; you noticed the subliminal advertising ;-) If you're happy for
> me to trample on the GNU section namespace that's fi
Andi Kleen wrote:
It's certainly possible; of course it looses you any size savings. I
If it's all in one place and only on disk it doesn't really matter doesn't it?
It sure does for embedded applications. And, there backwards
compatibility is often less of an issue; you're not conc
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080402 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080402/
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
I have a question regarding GCC4 version compatibility? In general,
should two versions with same major version number be compatible?
Specifically, I want to confirm whether a C++ library built with gcc
4.1.X will link correctly using gcc 4.2.2?
Thanks,
Xiaoxiang
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 05:16:23PM -0700, Xiaoxiang Liu wrote:
> I have a question regarding GCC4 version compatibility? In general,
> should two versions with same major version number be compatible?
> Specifically, I want to confirm whether a C++ library built with gcc
> 4.1.X will link correctly
I was speaking to Andrew Tridgell yesterday about how he uses svn with
the Samba project. He mentioned an idea that we could pursue in the GCC
project.
As you know, Subversion keeps all branches and the trunk under different
paths in the repository. Thus, it's possible to check out multiple
bran
Hi
I am in the process of verifying object code to source code traceability for
gcc (C source):
gcc 3.3.2 Wind River VxWorks PowerPC target
I need to demonstrate that the difference in instruction scheduling / branch
scheduling between PPC604 core and PPC603 core does not introduce untraceable
> Ideally I'd like to see the source code for the scheduler but I don't
> know where to find it. Can someone let me know where to get it,
> please?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html. You can also look into the version
control system via a web interface, but that isn't well suited to
grep. ;-)
Che
16 matches
Mail list logo
