Quoting Kaz Kojima :
sh_softfp.patch looks basically OK to me, though I'm curious
with numbers for fp-bit.c/softfp/softfloat. Could you show us
some real speed&size numbers?
I don't have any sh[1234] hardware to EEMBC tests on, but the runtime
difference of 'make check' on i686-pc-linux-gnu X
I wanted to create a bugzilla bug report, but I seem to have forgotten
my password; moreover, it would seem that bugzilla isn't actually sending
out password-change emails.
Here's the build error:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o d
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> I don't have any sh[1234] hardware to EEMBC tests on, but the runtime
> difference of 'make check' on i686-pc-linux-gnu X sh-elf using a core2 quad
> for fp-bit vs. softfloat (w/ compare/conversion/divsf) is two hours 4 minutes
> versus 38 minutes.
Very impressive. Thanks
To my knowledge, GCC does not currently support any edit-and-continue
abilities. Is this still true? And if so, are there any plans to introduce it
at some point?
- Rick C. Hodgin
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100717 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100717/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hello,
I'm conducting a research study at Oregon State University regarding
open bug reporting. We are studying various Bugzilla repositories from
a broad range of projects. We've selected your project to study.
We're wondering if you'll be at OSCON in Portland. If so, would you
(or some
Rick Hodgin writes:
> To my knowledge, GCC does not currently support any edit-and-continue
> abilities. Is this still true? And if so, are there any plans to introduce
> it at some point?
I don't see how it makes sense to add edit-and-continue to gcc.
Compilation times are too slow, but the
