OpenACC

Hello I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to use OpenACC with GCC compiler. I have a question about your compiler. Does your compiler support OpenACC in windows OS or not? Thanks very much -- Mahdi Lotfi Student at Sharif University of Technology

Re: OpenACC

Please don't cross-post to both the gcc and gcc-help mailing lists. Either your question is about GCC development, or it's about help using GCC, not both. Pick one list. On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 08:44, MAHDI LOTFI via Gcc wrote: > > Hello > I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to

Re: OpenACC

Thanks a lot. On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Please don't cross-post to both the gcc and gcc-help mailing lists. > Either your question is about GCC development, or it's about help > using GCC, not both. Pick one list. > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 08:44, MAHDI LOTFI via G

Question on lto-stream-out

Hi, I have a question on function "get_symbol_initial_value" in lto-stream-out.c. When the initial value of symbol is constructor, it will be replaced by an error_mark. What's the benefit of donging this? In some cases, it increases the size of binary. I would be grateful if anyone could help.

Re: Question on lto-stream-out

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:01 PM lizekun (A) wrote: > > Hi, > I have a question on function "get_symbol_initial_value" in lto-stream-out.c. > > When the initial value of symbol is constructor, it will be replaced by an > error_mark. > What's the benefit of donging this? In some cases, it increase

How to update .debug_frame CFA offset for function epilogues?

Hi, msp430-elf has an issue in the debugging information generated for function epilogues, where the CFA offset is not updated as the epilogue progresses and the stack pointer is modified by different instructions. For msp430 function prologues, instructions that modify the stack pointer are mark

RE: Question on lto-stream-out

Thanks for replying! I've dumped the lto stream-out file and noticed that constructors are streamed to function_body. Also, I noticed that, the binany which is generated when streaming constructors to function_body has bigger size than the one's streaming to decls. So, I wonder why we need to

Re: Question on lto-stream-out

On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM lizekun (A) wrote: > > Thanks for replying! > > I've dumped the lto stream-out file and noticed that constructors are > streamed to > function_body. > Also, I noticed that, the binany which is generated when streaming > constructors > to function_body has bigger

Re: OpenACC

Hi! On 2020-03-26T12:14:53+0430, MAHDI LOTFI via Gcc wrote: > I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to use OpenACC with > GCC compiler. I have a question about your compiler. Thanks for your interest in this. > Does your compiler support OpenACC in windows OS or not? As far a

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:29:03PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >-On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >>> I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days >>> is >>> lore.kernel.org, powered by

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:34:16PM +0100, Dmitry Mikushin wrote: >Maybe the best form of question is: Could the Overseer be so kind to >release the dump of the original old mailing list on any free public file >server? The old archives are still available via their old URLs, e.g., https://gcc.gnu.

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On 3/26/20 4:16 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:29:03PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> -On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists

Re: OpenACC

Thanks for your answer. On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 6:00 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On 2020-03-26T12:14:53+0430, MAHDI LOTFI via Gcc wrote: > > I am a researcher from Jam Petrochemical company I want to use OpenACC > with > > GCC compiler. I have a question about your compiler. > > Thanks

-static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

Hi all! Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie (gcc-9.3.0). Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are: - alpha-unknown-linux-gnu - hppa-unknown-linux-gnu - hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu - m68k-unknown-linux-gnu - sparc-unknown-linux-gnu - sparc64

Blog post about static analyzer in GCC 10

I wrote a blog post "Static analysis in GCC 10" giving an idea of the current status of the -fanalyzer feature: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2020/03/26/static-analysis-in-gcc-10/ At some point I'll write up the material for our changes.html page. Dave

Re: -static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc wrote: > Hi all! > > Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie (gcc-9.3.0). > Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are: See the relevant section at

Re: -static-pie does not seem to work on alpha, hppa, m68k, sparc

On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 22:43:37 + Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020, Sergei Trofimovich via Gcc wrote: > > > Hi all! > > > > Recently I attempted to build glibc-2.31 with --enable-static-pie > > (gcc-9.3.0). > > Some targets work just fine, some don't. A few faulty ones so far are:

RE: Question on lto-stream-out

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks again:) > -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: 2020年3月26日 21:19 > To: lizekun (A) > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Subject: Re: Question on lto-stream-out > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM lizekun (A) wrote: > > > >

Re: GSoC Static Analysis

On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 15:36 -0700, Andrew Briand via Gcc wrote: > Hello, > > I am an undergrad interested in extending GCC’s static analysis pass > for GSoC 2020. In particular, I’m interested in adding C++ support. Hi Andrew, thanks for your interest in the project. > The selected project idea

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On 3/25/20 10:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:03:15PM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: >> See the link at the bottom of every page in the old archive: >> http://www.mhonarc.org/ >> >>> what is the exact problem that prevents it from being used any longer? >> >> It's

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > FWIW, this particular overseer is is also pretty exhausted from the > effort of moving sourceware to a new system + new software and would not > relish the effort involved in getting all of this moved to new software. > I am sorry, to hear tha