On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > >
> > > A release candidate for GCC 4.3.3 is available from
> > >
> > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3.3-RC-20090117/
> > >
> > > and sho
> Brian Dessent :
[snip! Access from plugins to every aspect of the compiler]
> ... This means you'd have to move essentially everything into this
> mega-DLL, leaving cc1 and friends as merely stubs that set a flag and
> then call into the DLL never to return, since anything left in cc1
> woul
Hi everyone,
I met an error when I'd like to execute arm-elf-ld.
[condition]
1. main() is in main.o
2. func1() is in obj1.o
3. func2() is in obj2.o
4. main() refer to func2()
5. func2() refer to func1()
The following command occurs an error(undefined refer
Richard Guenther wrote:
Status
==
The trunk remains Stage 4, so only fixes for regressions (and changes
to documentation) are allowed.
Any chance that PR 38587 might get some attention. psim
is being miscompiled on x86_64.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38587
I am happy to
> [cut] ...
> But if I exchange the place of obj1.o with obj2.o, then the command is
> successful without any error.
>
> I want to solve without exchanging objs. (Bcs, I have too many objs.)
> If arm-elf-ld has an option related to this problem, it will be possible.
>
> Is there the way to solve it
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> As code shared by GCC and glibc I would suggest the same license notice as
> soft-fp (LGPL >= 2.1 + exception) to allow an identical file to be shared.
> (Indeed, soft-fp uses this header.) The version in GMP diverged long ago
> so sharing the file with that may not b
H.J. Lu wrote:
> We can limit new testcases, which we backport to 4.3 branch, only
> to those 4.4 regressions against 4.3 branch. They should always
> pass on 4.3 branch by definition.
There's nothing wrong with backporting testcases to an older release
branch, but please make sure that they pas
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:27 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jan 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Richard Guenther
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > A release candidate for GCC 4.3.3 is available from
>> > >
>> > > f
Hi Sebastian
While reading through the Graphite code on the trunk, I noticed that
-fgraphite and -fgraphite-identity are no documented in doc/invoke.texi.
Is this an oversight, or are these options deprecated?
Ben
--
Ben Elliston
Australia Development Lab, IBM
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
> Hi Sebastian
>
> While reading through the Graphite code on the trunk, I noticed that
> -fgraphite and -fgraphite-identity are no documented in doc/invoke.texi.
> Is this an oversight, or are these options deprecated?
These options are inten
> > Is this an oversight, or are these options deprecated?
>
> These options are intentionally not documented: they should not be
> used by programmers.
Perhaps we should add a comment to common.opt to explain this?
Ben
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
>> > Is this an oversight, or are these options deprecated?
>>
>> These options are intentionally not documented: they should not be
>> used by programmers.
>
> Perhaps we should add a comment to common.opt to explain this?
Yes, we could apply
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 23:20 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Perhaps we should add a comment to common.opt to explain this?
>
> Yes, we could apply this patch.
Looks good to me (and I think it qualifies as obvious) :-).
Thanks,
Ben
13 matches
Mail list logo
