On 22/04/2010 03:25, Jack Howarth wrote:
> @@ -267,7 +268,7 @@
># to just make the linker find libgcc using -L options.
># Similar logic applies to libgcj.
>if { [istarget "*-*-darwin*"] } {
> -lappend cxxflags -shared-libgcc -lgcj -liconv
> +lappend cxxflags "-shared-libgcc -l
On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote:
> What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)?
You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or
you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-informed guesses
about what the compiler ought to do, and com
22.4.2010 1:35, Andreas Schwab kirjoitti:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
$ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
$ objdump -T /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so|head -5
The equivalent of "objdump -T" is "nm -D".
Whatev
On 22/04/2010 09:16, Kai Ruottu wrote:
> Whatever the 'objdump -T' now tries to do during the
> 'gcc/configure', that it does with the wrong 'objdump',
> that for the $target, not that for the $host !
>
> Maybe there was some usual one-eyeness in implementation,
> in a native GCC $host == $target
Jack Howarth writes:
> Index: configure.ac
> ===
> --- configure.ac(revision 158487)
> +++ configure.ac(working copy)
> @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @@
> pluginlibs=
> if test x"$enable_plugin" = x"yes"; then
>
> + if te
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
>> Index: configure.ac
>> ===
>> --- configure.ac (revision 158487)
>> +++ configure.ac (working copy)
>> @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @@
>> pluginl
On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:57 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> (BTW I call lowlevel any language which does not manage memory
> automatically; I am quite fond of Ocaml even if I don't use it much today.
> So in my eyes C++, Ada95 & Fortran2005 are still low-level; this is only a
> matter of taste
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rainer Orth wrote:
This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
work.
Uh? From what I can find, solaris 7 already had nm -D, and so do all later
versions.
http://docs.sun.com/ap
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 14:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> I do realize that some people are running gcc on very old
> machines, that particularly happens say in developing
> countries or with students or hobbyists using old cast
> off machines.
For those developping free software the compile farm
Thanks Edmar! I will try and work your patch into our GCC 4.4.1
port and get some results.
Cheers,
Rahul
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> http://cx4a.org/software/gccsense/
> >>>
> >>> This approach seems highly, uh, "inspired" from the exact same
> >>> functionality in Clang. Any reason not to contribute
Dear Madams/Sirs,
1.The lowest price for embroidery digitizing services.More discount
available,please reply stand...@embpunching.com.
US$2.50/1000 stitches ()
For details,you can visit http://www.embpunching.com
PLEASE CONTACT US TO GET PRICE BROCHURE,OR AMOUNT DISCOUNT BROCHURE.
2.Sales for E
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> > Index: configure.ac
> > ===
> > --- configure.ac(revision 158487)
> > +++ configure.ac(working copy)
> > @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @
Looking at the results of the tests executed
by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
any evidence that -rdynamic is ever used. Can't
we reduce the tests performed as follow since
only -shared appears to be actually used? Removing
these tests would eliminate all of the problems
with not h
Jack Howarth writes:
>Looking at the results of the tests executed
> by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
> any evidence that -rdynamic is ever used.
On GNU/Linux, in order to use plugins, it's necessary to use -rdynamic
when linking cc1. Otherwise plugins will not be able to acce
The first release candidate for GCC 4.4.4 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.4-RC-20100422
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 158640.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Looking at the results of the tests executed
> > by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
> > any evidence that -rdynamic is ever used.
>
> On GNU/Linux, in order to use plugins, it's necessar
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>> > Looking at the results of the tests executed
>> > by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
>> > any evidence that -rdynamic is ever use
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> Jack Howarth writes:
> >>
> >> > Looking at the results of the tests executed
> >> > by plugin.
Hi Richard,
2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
> >
> > In the generated code for this function I can see a scheduling problem:
> >
> > int xxx(int* __restrict__ a, int
On Apr 22, 2010, at 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> I did this because the other responses made it seem that it wasn't
>> something that would be accepted back into GCC proper. Maintaining an
>
> Can you point at any response that said it would not be accepted back into
> GCC proper? Ther
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 22/04/2010 03:30, tbp wrote:
>
>> What's the deal with constexpr (or what can i reasonably expect)?
>
> You can *reasonably* expect the documented behaviour from the compiler. Or
> you can *un*reasonably ignore the documentation, make ill-i
On 22 April 2010 18:50, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Hi, Is there really a need for an angry reply like this? Is it better
> to just give some advises instead?
>
I just want to express that I agree with David's sentiment and the
above behaviour is not representative of GCC's community, not mater
Marc Glisse writes:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
>> either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
>> work.
>
> Uh? From what I can find, solaris 7 already had nm -D, and so do all later
Steven Bosscher writes:
>> This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
>> either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
>> work.
>
> And objdump does work on Solaris / IRIX?
Sure: all plugin tests pass on both platforms, and objdump is used by
the
Hi, I wanted to point people to the Linux Plumbers Conference Call for
Ideas. The conference is in its 3rd year, and it will take place in
Boston, in November. I think it would be a good opportunity to bring the
various communities together. Here is the official text, if you have any
ideas fo
Robert Dewar wrote:
Vladimir Makarov wrote:
Although it is not right argument to what you mean. But example
about vectorization would be right. ICC vectorizes many more loops
than gcc does. Vectorized loops is much bigger in size than their
non-vectorized variants. So faster code does not
Jack Howarth writes:
>Have you built gcc trunk with --enable-plugin on either
> Solaris or Irix? What is the expectation of which compiler is
No need: plugins just work on both platforms, both with the vendor tools
and gld (on Solaris, gld is currently broken for IRIX).
> I find on Irix 6.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 08:44:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Have you built gcc trunk with --enable-plugin on either
> > Solaris or Irix? What is the expectation of which compiler is
>
> No need: plugins just work on both platforms, both with the vendor tools
> a
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100422 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100422/
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/branches
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:49, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 06:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> This approach seems highly, uh, "inspired" from the exact same
>> functionality in Clang. Any reason not to contribute to that
>> effort?
>
> Surely trying to persuade people to contribute to some
On 22/04/2010 17:50, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Hi, Is there really a need for an angry reply like this? Is it better
> to just give some advises instead?
Ok, here is a non-angry reply to the angry post by tbp:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/smoke_and_mirrors
> Noun
>
> smoke and mirrors
>
Chris Lattner writes:
>>> I did this because the other responses made it seem that it wasn't
>>> something that would be accepted back into GCC proper. Maintaining an
>>
>> Can you point at any response that said it would not be accepted back into
>> GCC proper? There were no such comments AFAI
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it is
> not a nice thing to do.
Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
Seeing libstdc++ being combed over for constexpr, i've conveniently
fooled myself into believing my hopes were
On 23/04/2010 05:47, tbp wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it is
>> not a nice thing to do.
> Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
I apologise, I thought it was your intent but I believe you when you s
35 matches
Mail list logo
