Hi,
I've committed the following patch.
It should even perform better since we are able to often get rid of the
instructions extracting the condition code into a register (ipm, srl).
If all targets have been migrated the files probably could be merged?!
Bye,
-Andreas-
2012-06-15 Andreas Kre
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Walter Landry wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I thought you might be interested in some C++ expression template
> benchmarks I have done.
>
> http://www.wlandry.net/Projects/FTensor#Benchmarks
>
> I found that GCC optimized the expression template code better than
>
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:33:11PM +0200, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> from the others side, someone can use -frecord-gcc-switches to detect mixed
> '-std=...'
> after final linking and report error in such cases.
I don't think -frecord-gcc-switches is useful for that, unless you always
specify explicit
Hi,
I am trying 4.7.1 build for hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11. Variable SHLIB_MAPFILES is
not set for hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11 build. This is causing the build failure.
File: .../build/gcc/hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.11/libgcc/Makefile
Generated from: .../gcc_src/libgcc/Makefile.in
GCC 4.7.1 hppa1.1-hp-hpux1
Sorry missed to mention the issue. Since SHLIB_MAPFILES is empty the command
executed in the Makefile becomes:
{ .../build/gcc/./gcc/nm -pg _muldi3_s.o ... emutls_s.o; echo %%; \
cat \
| sed -e '/^[ ]*#/d' \
-e 's/^%\(if\|else\|elif\|endif\|define\)/#\1/' \
| .../buil
On 14 June 2012 22:42, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:34 -0400, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Well, I probably don't have a NEED for it. I've gotten along for 25+
>> years without it. :-)
>>
>> However, what prompted my inquiry is using it would've saved me tracking
>> down a
That would work. Yet now I'm back to remembering to update that line of code
equating self to its function name at each use.
My desire for "self" as a keyword is in looking for a way to use contextual
information the compiler already knows about and can easily employ.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodg
Hi,
I'm trying to expand a builtin functions into assembles, with
processing a little bit for the operands.
Like for the builtin function:
tcreate (arg0, arg1, arg2)
I'm trying to generate the assemble code (pseudo):
TCREATE arg0<<32|arg1, arg2
but I got the following error:
The output is still the same but the spill is fixed in 4.7.1.
On 14/06/12 13:47, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Hi,
I found a problem with my port where IRA generates a spill error. After
looking at the logs I get this kind of output for the best class for the
pseudo regs:
Pass 0 for finding pseudo/all
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:32 AM, Andreas Krebbel
wrote:
> If all targets have been migrated the files probably could be merged?!
Yes, it looks like most targets could use a generic implementation,
but the generic implementation should be based on the __atomic
intrinsics, not the __sync intrinsic
good job!
On Jun 14, 2012, at 5:45 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.7.1 has been released.
>
> GCC 4.7.1 is the first bug-fix release containing important fixes
> for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.7.0 with over 100 bugs
> fixed since the previous re
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
>>> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
On 12-06-15 12:42 , NightStrike wrote:
Took me a while, but I built a linux to win64 cross compiler using
--enable-build-with-cxx.
Thanks.
How do I verify that the compiler was
actually built with g++? ldd on the gcc binary?
That would work, yes. But do it on stage1-gcc/xgcc. The binar
Feng LI writes:
> I'm trying to expand a builtin functions into assembles, with
> processing a little bit for the operands.
>
> Like for the builtin function:
> tcreate (arg0, arg1, arg2)
> I'm trying to generate the assemble code (pseudo):
> TCREATE arg0<<32|arg1, arg2
>
> but I got the followin
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12-06-15 12:42 , NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Took me a while, but I built a linux to win64 cross compiler using
>> --enable-build-with-cxx.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> How do I verify that the compiler was
>> actually built with g++? ldd on the gcc
> It seems to be an inadvertent incompatibility caused by the
> interaction of a libstdc++ workaround for a bug and g++ behaviour that
> may not have been known to the libstdc++ devs, so not something that
> could have been prevented by making it a linker error, because noone
> knew it was even bro
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> IMO, at the /very least/, libstdc++ should go ahead and change std::string
> to be the new implementation. Once std::string is ABI-incompatible between
> the modes, there's basically no chance that anyone would think that
> linking things t
Hi,
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
>
>> IMO, at the /very least/, libstdc++ should go ahead and change std::string
>> to be the new implementation. Once std::string is ABI-incompatible between
>> the modes, there's basically no chance that anyone would think that
>> lin
They clause client code taking the address
=> cause
structs adn classes
=> and
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:52:27PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 3:12 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> >
> >> IMO, at the /very least/, libstdc++ should go ahead and change std::string
> >> to be the new implementation. Once std::string is ABI-incompatible between
>
On 15 June 2012 21:56, Jay K wrote:
>
> They clause client code taking the address
>
> => cause
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> structs adn classes
> => and
So fix them, it's a wiki.
Hi,
> Does this basically mean that compiling C++ code with GCC4.7 will be playing
> Russian roulette?
I don't know, I see pretty extreme statements around, which lately (maybe
because I'm getting older? ;) I do my best to avoid. In any case, 4.7.1 is
already out, whatever we do as regards to
On 15 June 2012 22:23, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
>
> Does this basically mean that compiling C++ code with GCC4.7 will be playing
> Russian roulette?
No.
If you don't use -std=c++11 then there's absolutely no problem
whatsoever. If you do use it, use it consistently.
I am running into a problem building a multilib version of libatomic.
Because of how I configure GCC (building the mips-linux-gnu target
with the --with-synci option) some compilations will always generate
a warning while compiling the libatomic files. See
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-06/msg0010
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120615 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120615/
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/branches
On 15 June 2012 22:58, Jay K wrote:
> I saw it said "ummutable page".
> I'll check again.
You need to be logged in to edit anything on the wiki, but anyone can
create a user and log in.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> Does this basically mean that compiling C++ code with GCC4.7 will be playing
> Russian roulette?
I don't think so. Let's make sure we do not overstate the case and we keep
things in perspective and accurate.
-- Gaby
27 matches
Mail list logo
