Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
We plan to use gcc exceptions within the GNAT front-end (previously we were
using a FE specific exception mechanism).
This requires a matching implementation in the runtime, which was last changed
for gcc 4.9
Our idea is to compl
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>
> We plan to use gcc exceptions within the GNAT front-end (previously we were
> using a FE specific exception mechanism).
> This requires a matching implementation in th
> On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>>
>> We plan to use gcc exceptions within the GNAT front-end (previously we were
>> using a FE specific excepti
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold
>> wrote:
>>> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>>>
>>> We plan to use gcc exceptions within the
On Jan 19 2017, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
The newest Ada compiler available for SLE11 is 4.8.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now f
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Jan 19 2017, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> > Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>
> The newest Ada compiler available for SLE11 is 4.8.
Various people still use 4.4 or even 4.1 as bootstrap compile
Hello,
I would like to configure a bi-arch PowerPC GCC. My naive approach was
simply:
diff --git a/gcc/config.gcc b/gcc/config.gcc
index 90308cd..228f941 100644
--- a/gcc/config.gcc
+++ b/gcc/config.gcc
@@ -2381,7 +2381,7 @@ powerpc-*-eabi*)
use_gcc_stdint=wrap
;;
powerpc-*-rt
On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 14:23 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 09:00 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > I think the ABI should set a baseline for each architecture, and the
> > baseline decides whether something is inlinable or not. Thus, the
> > x86_64 ABI would make __int128 operations n
On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 11:37 -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 03:28:56PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > However, there still seems to be a problem, but this time related to
> > alignment issues. We do have the 16-byte atomic instructions, but they
> > only work on 16-byt
On 1/19/2017 6:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Jan 19 2017, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
The newest Ada compiler available for SLE11 is 4.8.
Various people still u
> On 19 Jan 2017, at 13:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Jan 19 2017, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>>> Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GNAT ?
>>
>> The newest Ada compiler available for SLE11 is 4.8.
>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 09:20:31AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 1/19/2017 6:33 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:26:32PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > On Jan 19 2017, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later to build GN
> On 19 Jan 2017, at 12:31, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Jan 2017, at 11:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Tristan Gingold
>>> wrote:
Is it ok to require gcc 4.9 (3 years old) or later
> > (does bootstrapping GNAT with
> > a non-GNAT Ada compiler work? It really should!),
>
> I could work on that if you (or someone else) gives me a non-GNAT Ada compiler
> for my machine :-)
To be more serious: no, bootstraping GNAT with a non-GNAT Ada compiler doesn't
work and isn't supported,
If using -mcx16 (directly or indirectly) today, then cmpxchg16b is used
to implement atomic loads too. I consider this a bug because it can
result in a store being issued (e.g., when loading from a read-only
page, or when trying to do a volatile atomic load), and because it can
increase contention
I can't seem to find a download of gcc 5.x+ amd64 trusty.
my computer has no internet and needs a gcc update before I can build
a downladed source.
On 19 January 2017 at 18:58, Tcll wrote:
> I can't seem to find a download of gcc 5.x+ amd64 trusty.
>
> my computer has no internet and needs a gcc update before I can build
> a downladed source.
This is the wrong mailing list for help using or installing GCC.
Normally you should use the gcc-h...
Hi,
Help from a build maintainer needed :)
I am trying to find why mingw-w64 won’t build as a GCC cross-compiler with
multilib (see full report below). It fails in building 32-bit libgcc, because
we’re passing it the wrong flags. From toplevel configure, we have:
FLAGS_FOR_TARGET=$FLAGS_FO
Snapshot gcc-6-20170119 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20170119/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
On 01/16/2017 10:47 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
I'm working on PR target/78660 which is looking like a latent LRA bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
I believe the problem is in the same area as a bug was fixed in 2015:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015
Vladimir Makarov writes:
> On 01/16/2017 10:47 AM, Matthew Fortune wrote:
> > Hi Vladimir,
> >
> > I'm working on PR target/78660 which is looking like a latent LRA bug.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78660
> >
> > I believe the problem is in the same area as a bug was fixed
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> conftest.c:16:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
> }
> ^
> (insn/f 22 21 23 2 (parallel [
> (set (reg/f:DI 1 1)
> (plus:SI (reg/f:DI 1 1)
> (const_int 16 [0x10])))
> (se
my question is about downloading gcc for Ubuntu.
I'm sorry I used the wrong mailing list, and will ask my next question there.
thank you for your time.
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
:
Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
> I'll run testing for at least x86_64, MIPS and another
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and try to get this committed in the next
> couple of days so it can get into everyone's testing well before release.
I'm going to give it a try on SPARC.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hello Segher,
On 20/01/17 02:04, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 01:41:33PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
conftest.c:16:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
}
^
(insn/f 22 21 23 2 (parallel [
(set (reg/f:DI 1 1)
(plus:SI (reg/f:DI 1 1)
26 matches
Mail list logo
