On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Oh, additional patch for libgcc is also needed. Attached patch will
> enable filtering out TImode on 32bits and will also enable fallbacks
> for the two missing functions, so no need for any other changes.
>
> Can you please regression test these two patch
Hello,
Are there any new built-in implementations equivalent to atomic_read and
atomic_write in latest releases ?
if not should I rely on trick suggested in one of the earlier discussions as
below ?
">>We don't have atomic read or atomic write builtins (ok, you could
>>abuse __sync_fetch_and
Hello,
How is the definition of stack canery on MIPS arch? Where can I find a
specific on this topic?
When I read the source in Linux kerne, it was said that stack canary for
implementing stack protector is defined as an offset to %gs on x86
architecture. How about stack canary defined on MIPS?
thanku for giving me all notifications of gcc release..
On 8/8/10, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.5.1 has been released.
>
> GCC 4.5.1 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and
> serious bugs in GCC 4.5.0. This release is available from the
> FT
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, H.J. Lu wrote:
> int x = 0;
>
> to silence gcc from uninitialized warnings when I know it is
> unnecessary. Is that a good idea to add
>
> int x __attribute__ ((uninitialized));
>
> to tell compiler that it is OK for "x" to be uninitialized?
int x = x;
is the way GC
On 2010-08-30 14:46:57 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> int x = x;
>
> is the way GCC offers this idiom since about forever, no need for an
> attribute. Downthread I see that people worry about this generating an
> actual (uninitialized) access to x. They are confused.
This is not a good idea as
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> Can you please regression test these two patches on freebsd (32 and 64
>> bit)?
> Tests running...
Looks like a nice improvement, actually. On both this fixes previously
existing test failures and adds some passes (no changes on the failure
side on i
On 08/30/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Jiang wrote:
> When I read the source in Linux kerne, it was said that stack canary for
> implementing stack protector is defined as an offset to %gs on x86
> architecture. How about stack canary defined on MIPS?
It's not implemented for MIPS.
r~
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> >> Can you please regression test these two patches on freebsd (32 and 64
> >> bit)?
> > Tests running...
>
> Looks like a nice improvement, actually. On both this fixes previously
> existing test failures
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 08:28:58AM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> Oh, additional patch for libgcc is also needed. Attached patch will
> enable filtering out TImode on 32bits and will also enable fallbacks
> for the two missing functions, so no need for any other changes.
>
> Can you please regress
NightStrike wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, I wrote:
Perhaps some from the gfortran effort would like to give a talk. As far as
I can see I can support one person financially (trip from Europe to Ottawa
vice versa and stay in "Les Suites").
Only a gfortran person? Because I'd li
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
>> >> Can you please regression test these two patches on freebsd (32 and 64
>> >> bit)?
>> > Tests running...
>>
>> Looks like a nice improvement, actually. On both this fixes previously
>> existing test failures and adds some passes (no c
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, I wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps some from the gfortran effort would like to give a talk. As far
>>> as
>>> I can see I can support one person financially (trip from Europe to
>>> Ottawa
>>> vice
On 08/30/2010 09:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 08/30/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Jiang wrote:
When I read the source in Linux kerne, it was said that stack canary for
implementing stack protector is defined as an offset to %gs on x86
architecture. How about stack canary defined on MIPS?
It's not
On 08/30/2010 10:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
> believe, it is enough to patch only configure files (see i.e. commits
> that enabled soft-fp on mingw/cygwin/-gnu*).
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 10:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
>> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
>> believe, it is enough to patch only configure files (
2010/8/30 NightStrike :
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>> NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, I wrote:
>>
Perhaps some from the gfortran effort would like to give a talk. As far
as
I can see I can support one person financially (trip f
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
>>> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
>>> believe, it is enough to patch only configure files (see i.e. commits
>>> that enabled soft-fp on mi
On 08/30/2010 12:25 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> Attached is my best (untested) shot at libgcc-bsd.ver. Someone has
> to write i386/t-freebsd (similar to i386/t-linux) and connect it to
> the build system. The versioning assumes that this will be committed
> to 4.5.x first.
That file looks plausible,
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:25:42PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
> >>> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
> >>> believe, it is enough to patc
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >>> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
>> >>> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
>> >>> believe, it is enough to patch only configure files (see i.e. commits
>> >>> that enabled
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not familiar in versioning stuff, but since soft-fp symbols are
> >>> part of generic libgcc-std.ver for a long time (before 4.5.0), I
> >>> believe, it is enough to patch only configure fil
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 09:51:09PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> So, attached and untested.
>
> Uros.
I tested your patch on x86_64-*-freebsd. My ppl and cloog
libraries were built with FreeBSD's system gcc (4.2.1). All
tests failed due to missing symbols that are marked GCC_3.0.
> Index: gcc
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:43:44AM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 08/30/2010 09:46 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >On 08/30/2010 03:45 AM, Adam Jiang wrote:
> >>When I read the source in Linux kerne, it was said that stack canary for
> >>implementing stack protector is defined as an offset to %gs o
h my change to +=, on x86_64-*-freebsd I get
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes72950
# of unexpected failures74
# of unexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 215
# of unresolved testcases 3
# of unsupported tests 1081
/usr/h
Hello
I just proposed a tutorial session to GCC Summit 2010:
Easily coding a GCC extension with MELT
===
MELT is a powerful lispy domain specific language for coding GCC
extensions, particularily in the middle-end. It is available as a GCC
plugin and as an exp
26 matches
Mail list logo
