Hello,
This is a similar problem I was having yesterday, and I need to
understand how to fix this. This is somewhat similar to my previous
inquiry, I do apologize. In my compiler pass I am inserting a new
GIMPLE assignment statement after an existing function call statement.
This usually works fi
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> This creates a problem for build and packaging systems that are
> fanatical about binary reproducibility and checksums. Temporary file
> names differ on each compilation, so that two different builds of
> libgfortran.a, and by extension all of gcc, will
On 20 July 2012 14:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 July 2012 12:43, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> using a new std::list and std::pair, or the old one (well, std::pair is a
>> bad example probably, std::string and std::list is good, what other types we
>> are going to change?).
>
> I need to add a new
On 14.08.2012 17:58, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
unwinder is right and libgcc_s one is wrong.
I think the definition of _Unwind_GetCFA is ambiguous. It says "the
value of %rsp at the call site in the previous frame." GCC is
returning the value of %rsp at the point of the call to throw.
Solaris is r
On Tue, 2012-08-14 22:05:03 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have committed rev 190402, which merges the cxx-conversion branch
> into trunk. Thanks to everyone who provided review feedback and
> tested the branch.
Thanks for the work!
I've got a GCC autobuilder running. I only looked at some of
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Am 15.08.2012 18:26, schrieb Gabriel Dos Reis:
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > > A few points to consider:
> > > > * relation of __builtin_function_location to C99 (and C++11)
> > > >
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 8/15/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2012 Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > > Prototype below - fire away on bikeshedding names.
> > > > Ma
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > Would it be more productive to ensure that existing tools, like
> > valgrind, are effective with gcc?
>
> Indeed. Richard's patch strikes me as the way to go with
> the issue he raised.
It
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
> Hello,
> This is a similar problem I was having yesterday, and I need to
> understand how to fix this. This is somewhat similar to my previous
> inquiry, I do apologize. In my compiler pass I am inserting a new
> GIMPLE assignment statement aft
On 12-08-16 04:29 , Richard Guenther wrote:
May it not suggest it applies "very lazy", like after inlining for
example? Anyway, sofar I'd side with Michas suggestion of using
__builtin_FILE, etc. if people agree on adding _lazy that's fine
for me, too.
So far two votes for __builtin_FILE, one
On 16 August 2012 09:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> > This creates a problem for build and packaging systems that are
> > fanatical about binary reproducibility and checksums. Temporary file
> > names differ on each compilation, so that two different bui
Hi,
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Thanks for the note.
>
> To make things more concrete I've appended a prototype patch below. I
> don't know if any other languages are affected, but if they are this
> patch should extend reasonably well to cover those also. Does anyone
> have
From Makefile.tpl:
EXTRA_TARGET_FLAGS = \
'AR=$$(AR_FOR_TARGET)' \
'AS=$(COMPILER_AS_FOR_TARGET)' \
'CC=$$(CC_FOR_TARGET) $$(XGCC_FLAGS_FOR_TARGET) $$(TFLAGS)' \
'CFLAGS=$$(CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET)' \
'CXX=$$(CXX_FOR_TARGET) $$(XGCC_FLAGS_FOR_TARGET) $$(TFLAGS)'
Hello Everyone,
When my HEAD is at (svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@190444
138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4) I get the following error (please see it
pasted below). When I revert to 1 commit before that, the problem seem to go
away... Is it something to do with the GMP version I
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> From Makefile.tpl:
>
> EXTRA_TARGET_FLAGS = \
> 'AR=$$(AR_FOR_TARGET)' \
> 'AS=$(COMPILER_AS_FOR_TARGET)' \
> 'CC=$$(CC_FOR_TARGET) $$(XGCC_FLAGS_FOR_TARGET) $$(TFLAGS)' \
> 'CFLAGS=$$(CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET)' \
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Dmitri Shubin wrote:
> On 14.08.2012 17:58, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> unwinder is right and libgcc_s one is wrong.
>> I think the definition of _Unwind_GetCFA is ambiguous. It says "the
>> value of %rsp at the call site in the previous frame." GCC is
>> retur
16 matches
Mail list logo
