Re: Truncate optimisation question

2013-12-07 Thread Eric Botcazou
> But that's the problem with trying to do the optimisation in this way. > We first simplify a truncation of an SImode addition X. Then we simplify > a zero extension of that truncation. Then we have the opportunity to > realise that the zero extension wasn't necessary after all, so we actually >

Re: Truncate optimisation question

2013-12-07 Thread Richard Sandiford
Eric Botcazou writes: >> But that's the problem with trying to do the optimisation in this way. >> We first simplify a truncation of an SImode addition X. Then we simplify >> a zero extension of that truncation. Then we have the opportunity to >> realise that the zero extension wasn't necessary

3 libstdc++ tests fail at random

2013-12-07 Thread H.J. Lu
Hi, I have been seeing 3 libstdc++ tests: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc+ +.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++_multiple_inclusion.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 30_threads/async/async.cc execution test fail/pass at random on a fast machine. Is this expecte

Re: 3 libstdc++ tests fail at random

2013-12-07 Thread Paolo Carlini
On 12/07/2013 04:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: Hi, I have been seeing 3 libstdc++ tests: FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc+ +.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++_multiple_inclusion.cc (test for excess errors) FAIL: 30_threads/async/async.cc execution test fail/pass at r

Re: 3 libstdc++ tests fail at random

2013-12-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 05:43:12PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 12/07/2013 04:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >I have been seeing 3 libstdc++ tests: > > > >FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc+ > >+.cc (test for excess errors) > >FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc++_multiple_inclusion.cc (test for > >e

Re: 3 libstdc++ tests fail at random

2013-12-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 05:43:12PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> On 12/07/2013 04:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> >I have been seeing 3 libstdc++ tests: >> > >> >FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/stdc+ >> >+.cc (test for excess errors) >> >FAIL: 17_int

Re: 3 libstdc++ tests fail at random

2013-12-07 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:26 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 05:43:12PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>> On 12/07/2013 04:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> >I have been seeing 3 libstdc++ tests: >>> > >>> >FAIL: 17_intro/headers/c++200x/s

bisonc++ ??

2013-12-07 Thread Bruce Korb
Googling: gcc undefined reference to `lexer_line' yields: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4262531/trouble-building-gcc-4-6 Please check for it in configure and mention it in the dependency message. :) Thank you!

Re: bisonc++ ??

2013-12-07 Thread Bruce Korb
On 12/07/13 12:59, Bruce Korb wrote: Googling: gcc undefined reference to `lexer_line' yields: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4262531/trouble-building-gcc-4-6 Please check for it in configure and mention it in the dependency message. :) Thank you! Oops -- I was too optimistic:

gcc-4.7-20131207 is now available

2013-12-07 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20131207 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20131207/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list

2013-12-07 Thread Tae Wong
The Got It button has been removed on Warning: Enabling the Script panel causes a Firefox slow-down due to a platform bug. This will be fixed with the next major Firefox and Firebug versions. It appears when Firebug has a warning. The Launchpad account seotaewong40 has been suspended with request