> --enable-stage1-languages=go. (Mail to the OP is bouncing for me, by
> the way.)
I don't know why.
I'm getting them, at least via the list.
> Since the OP is apparently seeing Go build in stage 1, I assume that the
> OP is configuring with --disable-bootstrap or with
Right. I thought I was
Jay K writes:
>> --enable-stage1-languages=go. (Mail to the OP is bouncing for me, by
>> the way.)
>
> I don't know why.
> I'm getting them, at least via the list.
For every e-mail I send to jay.kr...@cornell.edu, I'm getting a bounce
from cashub03.exchange.cornell.edu saying
- The follow
On 05/11/2012 03:16 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> MULTILIB_OPTIONS containing options defined in DRIVER_SELF_SPEC seemed
> to be fine in GCC46 but fail in GCC47.
>
> For example, I have:
> xap.h:
> #define DRIVER_SELF_SPECS \
> "%{help:-v} % "%{mno-args-span-r
My program and subroutines are mainly written in fortran 77 with blanck
common of different sizes.
The program contains the maximum byte declaration of the blanck common.
1% are written in C, compiled with gcc.
-bash-> gfortran -v
Utilisation des specs internes.
COLLECT_GCC=gfortran
COLLECT_LTO
On 17/05/12 17:08, Richard Henderson wrote:
My question is, why are you generating compares in two different
modes early, before compare-elim runs? If you hadn't done that,
your redundant compare would already be eliminated.
I just looked at the rx code and it seems to be doing something sim
PERRONNET Alain wrote:
My program and subroutines are mainly written in fortran 77 with blanck
common of different sizes.
If the program and subroutines are compiled with the option -g the
load-module is OK.
if the program and subroutines are compiled with the option -O the
execution
of the lo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&hl=ro&v=_Sl3Ox7RMnE
To unsubscribe please send email to unsubscr...@cc.psd-prahova.ro
[again as plain text, sorry, with edits]
I know gccgo is actually C++.
But why was no-rtti specified? Maybe that is for the other code, the C code?
But I see:
> and using -fno-rtti saves some space in the generated compiler.
Is it worth it?
I guess you could configure with and without
Jay K writes:
> I know gccgo is actuall C++.But why was no-rtti specified? Maybe that
> is for the other code, the C code? Thank you, sorry, I'm in a rush
> right now, - Jay
I thought I answered that earlier. When building C++ code that is part
of GCC itself, we use -fno-rtti because GCC never
Jay K writes:
> I know gccgo is actually C++.
> But why was no-rtti specified? Maybe that is for the other code, the C code?
Answered previously.
> But I see:
>
> > and using -fno-rtti saves some space in the generated compiler.
>
>
>
> Is it worth it?
Sure, why not? We make similar chang
Hello Everyone,
Is there a #define in GCC that will turn on only for certain languages?
I am trying to use build_array_ref but it is giving me a undefined reference
for f951. This code that I am trying to use will ONLY execute if we have a
C/C++ code. Is it possible for me to enclose t
"Iyer, Balaji V" writes:
> Is there a #define in GCC that will turn on only for certain languages?
> I am trying to use build_array_ref but it is giving me a undefined reference
> for f951. This code that I am trying to use will ONLY execute if we have a
> C/C++ code. Is it possible fo
12 matches
Mail list logo
