Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Miles Bader
Ian Lance Taylor writes: > As I just mentioned on the gcc-patches mailing list, I have just > committed the Go frontend to mainline. What's the name of the resulting compiler binary? "ggo"? -Miles -- Opposition, n. In politics the party that prevents the Goverment from running amok by hamstri

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Joern Rennecke writes: > Quoting Andrew Pinski : > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >>> The Go language is not built by default, so this should not have a >>> significant effect on most developers. >> >> Hmm, but it looks like it is currently. > > Indeed, as of r167408,

Re: RFA: patch to prohibit IRA undoing sched1 [was IRA undoing sched1]

2010-12-03 Thread Jeff Law
On 12/02/10 15:17, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 12/01/2010 02:14 PM, Paul Koning wrote: On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: On 11/29/2010 08:52 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I'm doing some experiments to get to know GCC better, and something is puzzling me. I have defined an md file

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Joseph S. Myers
I notice two files in the front end have '#include "ansidecl.h"'. ansidecl.h is automatically included from config.h so it is not conventional for files in GCC to include it directly. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Joern Rennecke writes: > > > Quoting Andrew Pinski : > > > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >>> The Go language is not built by default, so this should not have a > >>> significant effect on most developers. > >> > >

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Joseph S. Myers
I don't see a ChangeLog file in the gcc/go directory - I take it one will be created for all future changes to that directory outside of the gofrontend subdirectory? -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Miles Bader writes: > Ian Lance Taylor writes: >> As I just mentioned on the gcc-patches mailing list, I have just >> committed the Go frontend to mainline. > > What's the name of the resulting compiler binary? "ggo"? gccgo. Ian

Re: libstdc++ gets configure error in cross builds

2010-12-03 Thread Paul Koning
On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> >> On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Paul Koning wrote: On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Paul Koning w

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
"Joseph S. Myers" writes: > I don't see a ChangeLog file in the gcc/go directory - I take it one will > be created for all future changes to that directory outside of the > gofrontend subdirectory? Yes, and in fact already done as of a few minutes ago. Ian

Re: Committed Go frontend

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Michael Matz writes: >> > Indeed, as of r167408, --enable-languages=all includes go. >> >> Well, yeah. Isn't that exactly what should happen? > > The precedent would be Ada. It is not included in =all, you explicitely > have to enable it via e.g. =all,ada . I would have thought Go to behave

Re: libstdc++ gets configure error in cross builds

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 2, 2010, at 3:55 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > On Dec 2, 2010, at

Re: operator new[] overflow (PR 19351)

2010-12-03 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:26:58PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Chris Lattner: > >> > >> > On overflow it just forces the size passed in to operator new to > >> > -1ULL, w

Re: libstdc++ gets configure error in cross builds

2010-12-03 Thread Kai Ruottu
Paul Koning writes: I'm trying to do a cross-build of gcc 4.5.1. It's configured --target=mips64el-netbsdelf --enable-languages=c,c++, on an i686-pc-linux-gnu host. Can you try sysroot with full mips64el-netbsdelf C library and header files? The NetBSD archive maybe haven't them... The st

Problem with memory alignment for 64 byte moves

2010-12-03 Thread Neil Hickey
Hello everyone. I'm porting gcc to a new architecture and I'm allowing use of movdi instructions as the processor allows 8 byte loads. The processor however requires 8 byte loads and stores to be naturally aligned, yet gcc seems to be emitting loads and stores that are 4 byte aligned. How can I ma

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread Cary Coutant
> For the crtend files we could add a linker option that makes them > known as endcaps, and the linker could make sure they get laid out > last: > >   ld ... -lc -lgcc ... --endcap crtend.o crtn.o > > That puts the special knowledge about those files back in the gcc driver. I should have remembere

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread Cary Coutant
>>> Another way to do this would be to put a marker in the command line >>> that identifies where those libraries begin, and the linker could just >>> go back and rescan those libraries if needed, before the final layout >>> of the endcaps. >> >> I like that idea in general, but the difficulty is k

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: Another way to do this would be to put a marker in the command line that identifies where those libraries begin, and the linker could just go back and rescan those libraries if needed, before the final layout of the endcaps.

Re: Problem with memory alignment for 64 byte moves

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Neil Hickey writes: > I'm porting gcc to a new architecture and I'm allowing use of movdi > instructions as the processor allows 8 byte loads. The processor > however requires 8 byte loads and stores to be naturally aligned, yet > gcc seems to be emitting loads and stores that are 4 byte aligned.

Re: vector extension bug?

2010-12-03 Thread Richard Henderson
On 11/29/2010 03:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Basically, the 64-bit calling convention support assumes that the SSE2 > instructions are always available, and silently fails when -mno-sse2 is > used. I don't really have an opinion as to whether the compiler needs > to support this case correctl

config/svr4.h

2010-12-03 Thread Joseph S. Myers
The configuration header config/svr4.h is used 74 times in config.gcc (plus one reference in a comment). This header is nominally "Operating system specific defines to be used when targeting GCC for some generic System V Release 4 system". GCC no longer supports any generic System V Release 4

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: > Another way to do this would be to put a marker in the command line > that identifies where those libraries begin, and the linker could just > go back and rescan those libraries if

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:49 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:16 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Cary Coutant wrote: >> Another way to do this would be to put a marker in the command line >> that identifies where those libraries begin, and the linker c

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread Dave Korn
On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything > seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". Any chance you could send a complete diff? cheers, DaveK

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Dave Korn writes: > On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". > > Any chance you could send a complete diff? I just want to note that I continue to think this is a really bad idea, a

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dave Korn wrote: > On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". > >  Any chance you could send a complete diff? > I will submit a complete diff after I fix

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >>> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". >> >>  Any chance you could send a comp

PATCH: 2 stage BFD linker for LTO plugin

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Dave Korn wrote: >> On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >>> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". >> >>  Any chance you could send a comp

Re: Update LTO plugin interface

2010-12-03 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Dave Korn writes: > >> On 04/12/2010 01:24, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >>> I checked in a patch to implement stage 2 linking. Everything >>> seems to work, including "gcc -static ... -lm". >> >>   Any chance you could send a complete diff? > > I ju