Hello,
I am porting gcc to a 32bit RISC chip, and I met a logical
error with 16bit arithmetic operations in generating assemble code.
the error is between two 16bit data movement(unsigned short).
While like A = B, A, and B are all unsigned short type. B is a
result of a series of computati
Hi Ho!
On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 15:29 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > So while trapping variants can certainly be introduced it looks like
> > this task may be more difficult.
>
> I don't think you need to introduce trapping tree codes. You can
> introduce them directly in the front-end as
>
>
Hi,
current mainline is buggy in EH unwinding effectivly ignoring
MUST_NOT_THROW regions when reached via RESX from local handlers.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01285.html for details.
Unfortunately this patch causes bootstrap failure when building libjava,
because std::termina
Eus wrote:
> Hi Ho!
>
> On Fri, 2009-03-06 at 15:29 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> So while trapping variants can certainly be introduced it looks like
>>> this task may be more difficult.
>> I don't think you need to introduce trapping tree codes. You can
>> introduce them directly in the front
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> current mainline is buggy in EH unwinding effectivly ignoring
> MUST_NOT_THROW regions when reached via RESX from local handlers.
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01285.html for details.
>
> Unfortunately this patch causes bootstrap failure when building lib
daniel tian writes:
> I am porting gcc to a 32bit RISC chip, and I met a logical
> error with 16bit arithmetic operations in generating assemble code.
> the error is between two 16bit data movement(unsigned short).
> While like A = B, A, and B are all unsigned short type. B is a
> result
I need to add support for some custom attributes that I need to know during
operand matching. I have no problem adding the attributes, but I don't know
what to do so that I can access the information later. My function that is
called to handle the attribute looks like this:
static tree
attr_mya
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > current mainline is buggy in EH unwinding effectivly ignoring
> > MUST_NOT_THROW regions when reached via RESX from local handlers.
> > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-03/msg01285.html for details.
> >
> > Unfortunately this patch causes bootstrap failure whe
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> OK, pragma_java_exceptions variable is not there
It's in mainline now.
> does something like this work for you?
Yes.
Andrew.
> Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > OK, pragma_java_exceptions variable is not there
>
> It's in mainline now.
>
> > does something like this work for you?
>
> Yes.
OK, I will do full testing cycle (x86_64-linux) and commit it.
Thanks!
Honza
>
> Andrew.
From: "Joe Buck"
Debian stable, and Ubuntu Hardy (most recent LTS release) have 2.3.1.
Same with OpenSUSE 11.0. So I think 2.3.1 is typical of current stable
releases; Fedora tends to be bleeding edge and not typical.
I still have to deal with older distros (e.g. RHEL 4), but it's
already nec
> I need to add support for some custom attributes that I need to know during
> operand matching. I have no problem adding the attributes, but I don't
> know what to do so that I can access the information later. My function
> that is called to handle the attribute looks like this:
>
> static tre
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
By the way, from reading this messages I think that people have a
slightly rosier recollection of the egcs split than I do. I think the
egcs split was the right thing to do, but it was also a power play on
the part of Cygnus because we could not continue operating under
Eric Botcazou writes:
>> I need to add support for some custom attributes that I need to know during
>> operand matching. I have no problem adding the attributes, but I don't
>> know what to do so that I can access the information later. My function
>> that is called to handle the attribute loo
Bernd Roesch schrieb:
without changed headers old ompiler and libs do not work, because for C
there is no
sqrtf and other C99 funcs and many C++ programs get also many errors.
Ok, you are trying to add C99 functions to your libc. Apparently you
made a mistake if you get linker errors.
i see o
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll create a patch.
P... for those of us who just install the latest-and-greatest
fedora/suse/ubuntu/... once and don't change installations for two or
three years (stable machine,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> If there are no objections, I'll create a patch.
>>
>> P... for those of us who just install the latest-and-greatest
>> fedora/suse/ubuntu/... on
Steven Bosscher wrote:
The problem doesn't happen on machines I own or have root access to.
It's only a problem when you try to do gcc development on machines
hosted by 3rd parties (SF compile farm, HP cluster, machines at places
where I work and/or where I try to convince people to use gfortran
[Joseph, Danny, see below for request.]
At long last, I have created the GCC 4.4 release branch.
We are now in Stage 1 on the mainline. Please go ahead and begin
checking in approved patches. Please try to coordinate so that we do
not have multiple overlapping radical changes. Please announce
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 12. Updating the email parsing script. AFAICT, this hasn't been done in
> a while, so I wasn't sure if it was considered obsolete.
I have done this. I'll deal with the snapshot and .pot files later.
I'll close 4.2 branch at some point after the PR s
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20090327 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20090327/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> 12. Updating the email parsing script. AFAICT, this hasn't been done in
>> a while, so I wasn't sure if it was considered obsolete.
>
> I have done this. I'll deal with the snapshot and .pot
Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> If we want to deprecate gccbug in 4.4 and remove it in 4.5 (and so not
>> need 4.5.1 or subsequent versions in this script), there is still time to
>> do so (though not to get it in the first deprecated-features-removal patch
>> for 4.5 - that has already been approved for
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20090327 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20090327/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
I plan to merge the alias-improvements branch next weekend (in 7 days)
if all goes well. I will do bootstrap & regtesting on the archs
I have available (x86_64, i?86, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390 and s390x).
During the next week I will try to extract all bugfixes from the branch
and apply them separat
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 19:38, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I plan to merge the alias-improvements branch next weekend (in 7 days)
Looking forward to that! Thanks for doing this.
Diego.
26 matches
Mail list logo
