On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> Does FreeBSD ever set errno for malloc() calls? See PR47179 and
>> PR42944 - which means it might require splitting the flag into a
>> math piece and a general piece (or one coveri
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:27 PM, FX wrote:
>> GCC maintainers is this OK for your policy?
>
> Personally, I don't think it's a good thing to do: a secondary platform that
> only supports the latest released version of said platform does not indicate
> high stability. But it's up to the cygwin ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/11 12:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 02/07/2011 01:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 02/07/11 11:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In the pas
On 02/08/2011 09:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/11 12:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 01:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/07/11 11:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
In
Sorry all, been offline for a couple of days after my pc blew up.
On 07/02/2011 20:50, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> I do not understand the logic here: break GCC trunk for something that
> hasn't been yet released.
But GCC trunk has not been released either yet! GCC trunk and Cygwin trunk
are
Hi,
The following article has a fairly comprehensive set of benchmarks run
against all the current stable releases of GCC as well as 4.6.0.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_avx_gcc&num=1
There are some great results for 4.6.0 in there, which is very good
news (congratul
On 08/02/2011 11:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:27 PM, FX wrote:
>>> GCC maintainers is this OK for your policy?
>> Personally, I don't think it's a good thing to do: a secondary platform
>> that only supports the latest released version of said platform does not
>> indica
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/08/11 09:08, Tony Poppleton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following article has a fairly comprehensive set of benchmarks run
> against all the current stable releases of GCC as well as 4.6.0.
>http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/08/11 08:43, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> What's the best way to test the sparc-rtems target? Do you use a sim?
> I've got access to sparcs via the gcc buildfarm, but that's about it.
>
>> We use the sis/erc32 simulator in gdb.
>
>> You have to bui
On 8 February 2011 09:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 February 2011 23:57, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> And wouldn't it be appropriate to remove doc/xml/gnu/fdl-1.2.xml now
>> that you have added fdl-1.3.xml?
> Possibly. We still have gpl-2.0
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:37 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Richard Guenther
> > wrote:
> >> Does FreeBSD ever set errno for malloc() calls? See PR47179 and
> >> PR42944 - which means it might require splitting the flag
What are the base option set used in all the comparison? O2, O3? Some
of the build time results look weired -- e.g., adding -march speeds up
*compile time* by 35%.
David
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Tony Poppleton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following article has a fairly comprehensive set of bench
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 16:14, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> What are the base option set used in all the comparison? O2, O3? Some
The flags are those set by the Makefiles of the different benchmarks
(as downloaded from the web).
Setting different flags with CFLAGS=... is painful.
> of the build t
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110208 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110208/
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 8 February 2011 22:49, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
> Because phoronix uses make -j the compile times are highly random.
Don't they know how to use 'time' to measure something more useful?
I wouldn't be entirely surprised, last time I looked they didn't seem
to know to use --enable-checking=release w
Jonathan Wakely writes:
>> Because phoronix uses make -j the compile times are highly random.
>
> Don't they know how to use 'time' to measure something more useful?
> I wouldn't be entirely surprised, last time I looked they didn't seem
> to know to use --enable-checking=release when comparing co
> While I appreciate Phoronix as a booster site, their benchmarking
> practice often seems very dodgy; I'd take the results with a large grain
> of salt
The main reason I posted the link in the first place was because it
was reflecting my own emperical evidence for the application I am
working
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> This almost works but libstdc++-v3/configure.ac explicitly
> checks $with_newlib to trip some AC_DEFINE's which have
> to be tripped to build. I have a patch attached that logically
> says if on target X, then you are always using newlib so
> if you have
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Jean-Marc Saffroy wrote:
> (define_constraint "I"
> "Signed 6-bit integer constant for binops."
> (and (match_code "const_int")
>(match_test "IN_RANGE (ival, -24, 32)")))
>
> (define_register_constraint "A" "ADDR_REGS"
> "The address registers.")
>
> (define_regis
Hello,
I would like to present you a small plugin, which could be a good
exemple of a MELT use case.
This plugin allows to monitor that after every call to the fopen
function, we have a test on the pointer returned by fopen (monitoring
that it is not null).
It creates a pass after SSA and wo
20 matches
Mail list logo
