Hi,
I am enabling shrink-wrap for ARM. But get lots of ICE during make
check for THUMB2:
internal compiler error: in maybe_record_trace_start, at dwarf2cfi.c:2227.
Shrink-wrap allows jumps in epilogues. It will generate a common
simple_return block as the destination for multi-branches. More
det
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:31 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> After a hiatus, I've restarted work on an API for GCC plugins -
> specifically, a C API (given that my plugin is written in C, I have more
> interest in that than a C++ API).
>
> BTW, how many other GCC plugins are written in C?
>
> It's still
Hi,
I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
discussing about live range shrink, like:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00248.html
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00188.html
In these messages many people showed interests in LRS, in or out of
sched1 pa
Hi,
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> Micha was also working on the proposed introspection API, I blame him
> for not posting anything about this despite it's being "ready" since a
> few months...
He. I didn't yet come to make the changes about operand inspectors
Hi,
well, those failures are caused by -Werror switch. You should turn it
off. Nevertheless there is already a bug report about this. See bug
53912 with title "[Bug bootstrap/53912] [4.7/4.8 Regression] bootstrap
fails using default c++ mode in stage 2 and 3 for native
x86_64-w64-mingw32"
Rega
Hi,
I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
any real feedback on them :-
[PATCH] Remove dependency of cp/cp-lang.c on cp/parser.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02010.html
[PATCH] limited C++ parsing support for gengtype
http://gcc.gnu.org/m
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
> any real feedback on them :-
[...]
> [PATCH] C++'ization of cp/parser.c/h
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02018.html
>
>
> This last patch possi
On 2012-09-08 15:44 , Kamran Amini wrote:
Hello GCC guys
I am really interested to be a part of GCC development team, specially
G++ and C++11.
In addition to what Basile recommended, I would suggest visiting
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted. It contain several pointers to
documents to
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have put in three patches on the 29th of August, but have not heard
> any real feedback on them :-
>
>
> [PATCH] Remove dependency of cp/cp-lang.c on cp/parser.h
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg02010.html
I will r
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 13:54 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > Micha was also working on the proposed introspection API, I blame him
> > for not posting anything about this despite it's being "ready" since a
> > few month
[ I am adding back GCC mailing list in the CC: as this would be useful
for other contributors. ]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> On 10 September 2012 15:25, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Aaron Gray
>> wrote:
>> > On 10 September 2012 14:35
On 09/10/2012 04:53 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It is not clear what the benefit is to move existing perfectly working
internal non-member functions to being member functions a huge struct.
I did this with cxx_eval_constant_expression and the functions it uses
internally. The advantage is th
2012/9/10 Kai Tietz:
> Hi,
>
> well, those failures are caused by -Werror switch. You should turn it
> off.
You mean '--disable-werror'? If so, then I use this option.
> Nevertheless there is already a bug report about this. See bug
> 53912 with title "[Bug bootstrap/53912] [4.7/4.8 Regression]
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/10/2012 04:53 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> It is not clear what the benefit is to move existing perfectly working
>> internal non-member functions to being member functions a huge struct.
>
>
> I did this with cxx_eval_constant_ex
Hi David,
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
> Is it possible for you to post your work-in-progress code somewhere?
Attached.
> I know that you don't feel it's ready for committing, but I would find
> it helpful - I'm interested in understanding the general approach,
> rather than seei
On 10 September 2012 15:53, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> [ I am adding back GCC mailing list in the CC: as this would be useful
> for other contributors. ]
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Aaron Gray
> wrote:
>> On 10 September 2012 15:25, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 201
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> What I am looking to obtain is isolating the C++ parser with no real
> semantic changes, just isolating the interfaces in order that the
> parser be reusable as a library component and allow migration to other
> solutions.
Yes, for that, you
On 10 September 2012 16:54, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Aaron Gray
> wrote:
>
>> What I am looking to obtain is isolating the C++ parser with no real
>> semantic changes, just isolating the interfaces in order that the
>> parser be reusable as a library component
Hi,
The big change is to fix STB_SECONDARY support:
a. Generate STB_SECONDARY symbols in DSO by default.
b. Properly handle STB_SECONDAY symbols when linking with archive.
c. Don't allow .weak directive to override .secondary directive.
It may be used to fix the libpthread.a issue in gl
On 09/04/2012 02:25 PM, Jens Rosenboom wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Do you maybe know how to find out (in legitimize_pic_address() and in
> arm_assemble_integer()) whether an address (rtx) is in text/rodata or
> in data?
You need to catch this much earlier than this. See the encode_section_info
hook
On 09/10/2012 01:41 AM, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> In function maybe_record_trace_start, there is a check:
>
> /* We ought to have the same state incoming to a given trace no
> matter how we arrive at the trace. Anything else means we've
> got some kind of optimization error.
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 17:20 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> > Is it possible for you to post your work-in-progress code somewhere?
>
> Attached.
Many thanks for posting this! Various comments inline below.
> > I know that you don't feel
On 12-09-10 6:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
Hi,
I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
discussing about live range shrink, like:
As I know Ghassan preferred to work on Open64 that time in AMD and never
touched GCC.
and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg00188.htm
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> On 12-09-10 6:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I digged into gcc mail archive and found there are several threads
>> discussing about live range shrink, like:
>
> As I know Ghassan preferred to work on Open64 that time in AMD and neve
24 matches
Mail list logo
