Hello,
I have a problem while cross-compiling a native sh4 compiler. To be
exact, I'm building on x86_64 a linux native sh4 compiler. My
configure is :
configure *--host=sh4-linux* *--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-
gnu* --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin
--sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconf
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>> i386.c has
>>
>>{
>> /* When not optimize for size, enable vzeroupper optimization for
>> TARGET_AVX with -fexpensive-optimizations and split 32-byte
>> AVX unaligned load/store. */
>
> This
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>>> Seriously..
On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say simply go ahead.
Note that i386-freebsd is still listed as primary arch
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
>>
>> ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
>> are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say si
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
> I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
> they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no reason for
it to be a primary platform.
Ciao!
Ste
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>> Seriously...
>
>
> Well the embedded folk often end up with
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no reason
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotom
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM, John Marino wrote:
> FreeBSD and DragonFly (at least) have already dropped i386 support, it's an
> alias for i486. I don't know about NetBSD or OpenBSD.
According to
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/2009/02/24/msg000582.html
i386 support has been dr
On 13/12/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compi
Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
question is whether there are other vendors producing
compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
On 12/13/2012 12:38, David Brown wrote:
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
> don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
> because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
You're confused. Dropping something as a
Hello,
I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
this information from the middle end without having to query the
frontend?
-Matt
On 13/12/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On 12/13/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
>
>
> Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
> question is whether there are other vendors producing
> compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
Ralf has found one such a
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
> listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not using still maintained
> compilers" whic
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino wrote:
> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
> listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not using still maintained
> compilers" whi
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino wrote:
>> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
>> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
>> listed on your reference. He also
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Gerald runs regression tests on both i386 and x86_64 freebsd (though some old
> versions of it). We do have a listed maintainer for freebsd. Apart from
> build
> issues I am not aware of frequent freebsd specific bugs.
Gerald's test for i
On 12/13/2012 13:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Everything I have said is a fact, please illustrate which statement I made
> seems emotional.
Joining in this discussion at all? I wish *bsd people were just as
responsive to bug reports...
Ciao!
Steven
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of implementation and maintenance burden.
Yes,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>>> Seri
>> Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
>> But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate
>
>
> I've never heard about them before, nor do I know how far spread their
> products are, however these folks seem to be producing i386-SoCs
> http://www
On 12/13/2012 03:15 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of
Quoting Ralf Corsepius :
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up w
On 12/13/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius :
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriou
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>
> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
> this information from the middle end without having to query the
> frontend?
What kind of data type info
Legal drugs: smoking blends, powders and tablets.
Trip-reports, reviews, contacts of proven sellers.
For Russian ONLY.
New website: http://www.narkop.net/
You can use your old login and password. This new domain name was registred
via bullet-prof chinese registration service and never will be cl
Hi Ian,
Thank you for your reply.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>>
>> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
>> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
>> this
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Matt Davis wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
>>> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
Hi,
The new dump infrastructure was committed s
35 matches
Mail list logo
