Re: transitioning cloog to ppl-0.11

* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:01:16PM CEST: >My point was that in this case not only does ppl-0.11 require > the existing soversion of cloog to be rebuilt but also all other > previously built gcc releases that used it as well. >Considering that the existing cloog-0.15.9 s

build: are there situations where 'ar' does not work?

Hello GCC developers, Libtool recently added a configure test for @file support in ar (and other tools) in order to avoid the slower partial building or static libraries on some systems (and have an escape route on systems where the archiver doesn't allow adding to an archive). Now, to avoid issu

Re: Cross-platform build problem

Hello Piotr, * Piotr Wyderski wrote on Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 12:24:07PM CEST: > I'm trying to compile a GCC toolchain with target=arm-elf > and hosted on Cygwin/PC. Unfortunately, both GCC 4.5.1, > taken from the official mirror, and 4.6 trunk taken from SVN > fail to compile with the following err

Re: [RFC] Full float128, third iteration

* FX wrote on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 07:08:10PM CEST: > I'm CC'ing the gcc list so I can get insight from people who > understand correctly how static libraries should be handled by the > driver... > > > I'm seeing a similar issue with -static linkage. > > > > % gfc4x -o z norm2_3.f90 -L/usr/home/s

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

Hello, * Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 01:18:10PM CEST: > > That means, we at our option can choose to release under GPL v3, > > exclusively, if we wanted. > > I disagree, as I said. > > My interpretation of that sentence is that "when you redistribute > this, you must give the p

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

* Richard Kenner wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 11:01:56PM CEST: > > Please ask the FSF legal dept. to clarify the situation once and for > > all, they should be able to provide you with a binding (as for GCC) > > answer within a short time frame. > > It's my understanding that FSF legal departme

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

* Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST: > > > It's my understanding that FSF legal department has consistently refused > > > to answer such questions as this. > > > > Do you have a quote for that, please? > > How do you quote somebody who DOESN'T answer? I've asked for yo

Re: Merging Apple's Objective-C 2.0 compiler changes

[ about modifying the license of "GPLv2 or later" or similarly licensed code ] * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 08:15:57AM CEST: > * Richard Kenner wrote on Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 12:17:47AM CEST: > > > > It's my understanding that FSF legal depar

bump Autoconf and Libtool versions?

Hi Paolo, all, any plans to bump Autoconf and Libtool versions used in GCC? I'd like to see 2.68 and 2.4.0 in 4.6 in due course of course (i.e., after both have been released, and before stage 1 ends). Should I proposed patches then? Thanks, Ralf

Re: bump Autoconf and Libtool versions?

* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:11:30AM CEST: > On 09/19/2010 11:05 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >any plans to bump Autoconf and Libtool versions used in GCC? > >I'd like to see 2.68 and 2.4.0 in 4.6 in due course of course > >(i.e., after both have been

Re: Autoconf tests, libtool symlist files, undefined behavior, and LTO

Hello t7, * t66...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:01:31AM CEST: > I don't know if my problem suites this description. No, it doesn't. > Currently installed libtool on this system is, > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6b > > I recently tested the LTO feature of GCC (targeting windows

Re: toplevel *again* out of sync

Hi Paolo, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 10:47:18AM CEST: > I think that we should apply a *very* strict policy of not approving > toplevel patches unless the toplevel files are in sync. > > Thanks in advance to anyone that "volunteers" to fix things... You beat me by a couple of

make recheck?

Is there a way to rerun only failed tests after a 'make -k check'? If not, should there be, and how would one go about implementing this (I know the makefile parts but not the dejagnu bits). Asking because it could help speed up patch development: 1) hack hack hack 2) make -k check-$whatever 3) go

Re: toplevel *again* out of sync

Please fix the wrong side, and fix src/ChangeLog. Thanks. Other than that, below is the combined patch I intend to commit to src unless there are disagreements. Thanks, Ralf ChangeLog: 2010-10-02 Ralf Wildenhues Sync from GCC: 2010-09-30 Michael Eager * configu

Re: make recheck?

* NightStrike wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 05:47:24PM CEST: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Is there a way to rerun only failed tests after a 'make -k check'? > > If not, should there be, and how would one go about implementing this > >

Re: Who owns config.rpath?

[ adding bug-gnulib ] Hi Dave, * Dave Korn wrote on Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 01:42:15PM CEST: > I can't find any mention of it at the usual place for external sources > (http://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#upstream), so is our version > forked, or is that just an oversight? It comes original

Re: Problem in bootstrapping on mingw

Hello, * FX wrote on Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 11:22:50AM CEST: > > This is a known issue and related to timestamps of those generated > > .texi files. By touching generated .texi it can be solved. Hacked around, I would say, not solved. I guess to solve it, genhooks should produce output in binary m

Re: toplevel *again* out of sync

* Naveen H. S wrote on Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 10:44:40AM CEST: > >> Nick, Naveen, the diff between the GCC and the src commits is this; > >> which variant is correct? > >> -noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs target-libgloss ${libgcj}" > >> +noconfigdirs="$noconfigdirs ${libgcj}" > > The following v

Re: Trouble doing bootstrap

Hello, * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 03:07:46AM CEST: > Paul Koning writes: > > My build system doesn't have LD_LIBRARY_PATH defined so whatever is > > the Linux default would apply. Perhaps I should change that. But it > > seems strange that configure finds the prerequisites

Re: Trouble doing bootstrap

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:56:27PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > > Provide a configure switch --with-hardcoded-gccdeps that adds run path > > entries for pre-installed support libraries? > > I'm fine with that, but it just introduces an

Re: Trouble doing bootstrap

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:43:51PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > > OK. I won't argue my point further, but I am interested to learn why > > shared libraries in nonstandard locations are seemingly frowned upon > > here. Is that due to fragili

Re: G++ test suite picking up incorrect libstc++

Hello Michael, * Michael Eager wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 10:35:48PM CEST: > Paolo Carlini wrote: > >On 10/22/2010 08:43 PM, Michael Eager wrote: > >>I'm seeing test suite failures in g++ caused by > >>linking with the wrong libstdc++.so. > >> > >>It looks like g++.exp always appends the defaul

Re: I propose Ralf Wildenhues for build machinery maintainer

Hello, * Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:36:47AM CET: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > To the steering committee: I propose Ralf Wildenhues as a new maintainer > > for the build machinery. > > I've relayed this proposal, thanks Ian. (R

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

Hello, * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 11:41:17PM CET: > On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > There is also the libgo directory. The contents of libgo/go are a copy > > of the standard Go library and I don't think a review of that would be > > useful. But it would b

Re: Boostrap fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10 - libquadmath error

* Tobias Burnus wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:20:39PM CET: > b) Building with a cross compiler is not supported by the > libquadmath configure script > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46520 You should probably try out GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES in configure.ac and check with a couple of cr

Re: Boostrap fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10 - libquadmath error

* Rainer Orth wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:15:55PM CET: > > * One cannot -lm to libquadmath_la_LIBADD since that gets passed to nm, > which doesn't know (and doesn't need to be run) -lm. That's a bug in the rule using nm then, though. > Again, as in > libjava/Makefile.am, I've moved it

Re: Boostrap fails on i386-pc-solaris2.10 - libquadmath error

* Rainer Orth wrote on Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:32:59PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues writes: > > * Rainer Orth wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:15:55PM CET: > >> > >> * One cannot -lm to libquadmath_la_LIBADD since that gets passed to nm, > >> which doesn

Re: gccgo branch and darwin

* Arnaud Lacombe wrote on Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 05:58:13AM CET: > --- a/libgo/mksysinfo.sh > +++ b/libgo/mksysinfo.sh > @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ grep '^const _E' gen-sysinfo.go | \ > > # The O_xxx flags. > grep '^const _\(O\|F\|FD\)_' gen-sysinfo.go | \ > - sed -e 's/^\(const \)_\(\(O\|F\|FD\)_[^= ]*\)

Re: Possible issue with c++ linking with g++

* Param Ponnaiyan wrote on Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 06:50:26PM CET: > If I link it this way > g++ *.o libxxx.a > everything works fine. > BUT if I convert the .o's into a library say libnew.a and separate > main into main.cpp > and link like this > g++ main.cpp libnew.a libxxx.a > then it fails. This

Re: relinking `libjvm.la' error when make install libjava

Hello, * majia gm wrote on Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 04:21:14PM CET: > I'm compiling gcc-4.4.2 on an Arm similar machine with Java enabled. > Compilation is completed, but a failure comes out when make install, > with the error of '"relink libgvm". > > Do anyone know the reason of the failure? >  I re

development stage timeline

Is there an expected date for when stage 3 should end, or some other measure of pressure? The 4.6.0 status report link on gcc.gnu.org does not seem to tell (and I'm not sure whether it usually does or not). It would be good to get Libtool updated before, but I'm not sure I can finish it this week

Re: Unrecognized option '-Wl,-rpath' for jv-convert

* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 08:07:26PM CET: > I am trying to debug this, alas not very successfully so far and am > looking for a pointer or two. > > This happens with head as well; binutils (/usr/local/bin/ld) is 2.20.1. > > > Note 1: This can be avoid configuring with --disa

Re: Unrecognized option '-Wl,-rpath' for jv-convert

* Andrew Haley wrote on Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 10:24:53AM CET: > On 01/06/2011 09:28 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >On Thu, 6 Jan 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >>Does passing '-Wl,-rpath -Wl,/foo' to gcj work for a small example > >>program for you

Re: Unrecognized option '-Wl,-rpath' for jv-convert

* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 01:04:03AM CET: > On Tue, 11 Jan 2011, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> This is http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42524 > >> aka http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21206 > > Ah, yes. It seems I approved the fix for this in2006, but it n

Re: GCC & libtool - plans for moving to libtool 1.5?

Please Cc: me on replies. * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 02:10:51AM CET: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2006, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > > So when we finally do move to a newer libtool we will move to the > > unreleased libtool main line? I guess I was assuming we would move to a > > Yes, unles

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* FX Coudert wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 12:54:05PM CET: > >Actually there seems to be a recent change "backward" to that logic: > > > >2008-02-13 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >PR other/35148 > >* Makefile

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

[ adding gcc-patches ] * Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 02:46:45PM CET: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I see two possibilities: revert above patch, and list texinfo 4.11 as > > prerequisite for building the pdf/dvi > > I'm not in favo

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* FX Coudert wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 06:59:49PM CET: > > >If not, another > >possibility would be to just require users on MinGW to update their > >system texinfo installation. > > Weeks before the release? That doesn't give much time to anyone for > getting it working and actually testin

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* Weddington, Eric wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:41:02PM CET: > > > > I'm willing to try, but running "autoconf" doesn't regenerate the > > configure file, what am I missing? > > I do: > > aclocal > autoconf > > At the top level. aclocal 1.9.6, autoconf 2.59. You need to run autoconf in t

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* Weddington, Eric wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 08:32:26PM CET: > > With that patch I'm now getting: > > (echo "@set version-GCC 4.3.0"; \ > if [ "experimental" = "experimental" ]; \ > then echo "@set DEVELOPMENT"; \ > else echo "@clear DEVELOPMENT"; \ > fi) > gcc-vers.texiT > /bin/sh: buil

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:59:07PM CET: > * Weddington, Eric wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 10:30:24PM CET: > > Is there any reason why we can't revert the patch that caused this? > > Well if we do then we need to reopen PR 35148 which would be equiv

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

, could you please delete that file and try this patch instead (changes to configure included)? All I changed now was remove quoting from the Makefile rule. Sorry again for all the trouble. Thanks, Ralf gcc/ChangeLog: 2008-02-17 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PR bootstrap/35218

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* Weddington, Eric wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:08:58PM CET: > > No it wouldn't. I don't understand why reverting the patch would cause > havoc. The 20080208 snapshot built just fine, even with an old texinfo > version. I'd rather go back to that behaviour. It didn't for me, with texinfo 4.8,

Re: bootstrap broken on mingw

* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:42:34PM CET: > On Sun, 17 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > So, here's another alternative: fix the MinGW issue only, while not > > regressing on any of the other reported bug (famous last words): > > One way

Re: GCC 4.3 branch created, 4.4 opens for stage1

* Jakub Jelinek wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:18:02AM CET: > PR35218 - I believe the latest patch worked for the tester, > so we now have a patch and just need an approval? Yes, the patch is at and the confi

Re: GCC 4.3 branch created, 4.4 opens for stage1

* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 01:28:05PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Jakub Jelinek wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:18:02AM CET: > >>PR35218 - I believe the latest patch worked for the tester, > >> so we now have a patc

Re: GCC 4.3 branch created, 4.4 opens for stage1

* Gerald Pfeifer wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06:14PM CET: > On Tue, 19 Feb 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > So does you above OK also extend to the 4.3 branch? > > Heh, by committing to the 4.2 branch you made this a regression in 4.3 > now. :-} It's not i

Re: 4.3.0-rc1 available

Hello Guillermo, * Guillermo Ballester Valor wrote on Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:51:53PM CET: > El Friday 22 February 2008 20:21:36 Paweł Sikora escribió: > > > > as far i can see you're trying to build libgcj multilib (32/64-bits) > > on x86_64 only enviroment. please try --disable-libjava-multilib

Re: plugin includes for MELT

Hello Basile, A mere quick portability review: * Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 05:39:47PM CET: >> compile-basilys-defs: >> echo '#generated compile-basilys-defs' > $@ >> echo 'ALL_CFLAGS="' $(ALL_CFLAGS) '"' >> $@ >> echo 'ALL_CPPFLAGS="' -I$(PWD) $(ALL

Re: Successfull build of gcc 4.2.3 with MinGW 5.13 in windows XP

* dju wrote on Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 03:19:45AM CET: > platform : microsoft windowsXP(32) sp2 intel core duo > > i managed to build gcc-4.2.3 using MinGW-5.1.3 candidate with gcc 3.4.5 and binutils-2.17.50 in MSYS-1.0.10 [...] > > only one change in gcc-4.2.3 source : > in /work/src/gcc-4.2.3/libad

Re: plugin includes for MELT

* Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 06:56:35PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> * Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 05:39:47PM CET: >>>> run-basilys.d: run-basilys.h \ >>>>$(CONFIG_H) $(SYSTEM_H) $(TIMEVAR_H) $(TM_H) $(

Re: libtool for shared objects?

Hello Basile, * Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 09:18:54PM CET: > First, I have the impression that the libtool in e.g. > libjava/Makefile.in or libgomp/Makefile.in or libmudflap/Makefile.in is > not the usual one (I mean the Debian/Sid libtool package version > 1.5.26-1 f

Re: Official GCC git repository

* Joe Buck wrote on Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:18PM CET: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 02:01:46PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: [ switching to SVN ] > > The unfortunate thing is that other FSF projects haven't yet > > switched -- it baffles me that this is so. > RMS has decided to back bzr for Emacs, and

Re: libtool for shared objects?

* Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 07:57:33AM CET: > So I tried to add to gcc/configure.ac the following lines (which exist > in libmudflap/configure.ac) > > AC_LIBTOOL_DLOPEN > AM_PROG_LIBTOOL > AC_SUBST(enable_shared) > AC_SUBST(enable_static) > > and it does not work:

Re: Different *CFLAGS in gcc/Makefile.in

* Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote on Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:06:33PM CET: > in gcc/Makefile.in there are many different *CFLAGS, notablye > > ALL_CFLAGS = $(X_CFLAGS) $(T_CFLAGS) \ > $(CFLAGS) $(INTERNAL_CFLAGS) $(COVERAGE_FLAGS) $(WARN_CFLAGS) > $(XCFLAGS) @DEFS@ > > Do anyone have a precise idea o

Re: Regenerating configure scripts

Hello Michael, * Michael Eager wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 07:04:40PM CET: > I'm trying to include a fix for the recurring GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES problem. > Refs: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00790.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-03/msg00515.html FWIW, I was going to post a couple o

Re: Regenerating configure scripts

* Michael Eager wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 08:53:22PM CET: > Paolo Carlini wrote: >> Michael Eager wrote: >>> I'm trying to update configure in gcc/libstdc++-v3. >> Provided you have the correct versions of autoconf and automake, as >> indicated, just running autoreconf certainly works. > > No

Re: Combined gcc + binutils source tree doesn't bootstrap

Hello H.J., * H.J. Lu wrote on Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:22:14PM CET: > > I combined the current gcc and binutils mainlines into a combined > gcc + binutils source tree. When I tried to bootstrap it on > Linux/ia32 and Linux/Intel64 with shared library enabled, it went > to infinit loop when as or

Re: Fwd: [RFC, Patch, gfortran] make -static-libgfortran work on darwin.

Hello, * FX wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 05:59:36PM CEST: >> De : IainS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> I opted to call the static library "libgfortran_static" and to leave >> the shared name unchanged. >> >> It would be great if libtool could be persuaded to change the basename >> as well as the ext

Re: [RFC, Patch, gfortran] make -static-libgfortran work on darwin.

* IainS wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:42:29PM CEST: > On 10 Jun 2008, at 20:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> Can the driver use path/to/libgfortran.a instead of '-Lpath/to >> -lgfortran' to avoid being hindered by missing -Bstatic/-Bdynamic? > > this d

Re: [RFC, Patch, gfortran] make -static-libgfortran work on darwin.

We're getting a bit off-list; if this loses connection to GCC we may want to move to [EMAIL PROTECTED] * IainS wrote on Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:42:29PM CEST: > On 10 Jun 2008, at 20:06, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> >> It doesn't do that because that breaks the abstraction.

Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

* David Miller wrote on Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:26:03AM CEST: > > I used to be able to bootstrap gcc fully in minutes on average > hardware 6 or so years ago. Those days are long gone. On my largest > 64 cpu and 128 cpu boxes it takes forever these days. > > The libjava build is notoriously not

Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 04:42:19PM CEST: > > First I'll note that insn-attrtab.c is particularly slow for > x86/x86_64, presumably due to the many processor varieties and complex > scheduling. It is much faster for other targets. > > Compiling it earlier than it would ot

Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

* NightStrike wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 06:14:22PM CEST: > On 6/22/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think it would only be a few days of work for somebody familiar with > > Tcl to add -j support to DejaGNU. I think that would be a very useful > > contribution to gcc de

Re: Should we remove java from the default bootstrap languages?

* Ben Elliston wrote on Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 01:58:38AM CEST: > On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 10:58 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > IIRC, then objects in libjava were built from lists of source files as a > > means to avoid per-object overhead of libtool and some other stuff, and &g

Re: Feature request - a macro defined for GCC

Hello, >> Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> IMO, the whole notion of a compiler-specific macro has pretty limited >>> usefulness. Why not add macros for specific *features* offered by >>> the compiler. For example: >>> >>> #ifdef __SUPPORTS_NESTED_FUNCTIONS__ [...] >> Hmm, looks like this could >> g

Re: Bootstrap failure in stage 1 on trunk for i686-pc-linux-gnu

> > | On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Rainer Emrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > |> /opt/gnu/src/gcc/gcc-4.4.0/gcc/reload1.c: In function > > 'choose_reload_regs': > > |> /opt/gnu/src/gcc/gcc-4.4.0/gcc/reload1.c:6083: error: expected > > expression at end of input Looks like a corrupted file.

Re: GCC 4.3.2 Status Report (2008-07-31)

Hi Paolo, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:53:21PM CEST: > > PR35752, which is a P2 regression caused by libtool, is waiting for > approval upstream. Should we make an exception to the usual rules and > apply the fix on the branch? If by exception to the usual rule, you mean

Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes

* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST: > > (But the configure code also > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.) Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here, only redistribution is. Cheers, Ralf

Re: Build requirements for the graphite loop optimization passes

* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:31PM CEST: > > Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out > about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the > ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to > produce an undistrib

Re: Update libtool?

* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 06:26:15PM CEST: > Jack Howarth wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:03AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > >> > >> I wonder what the chances are of moving mainline gcc to a newer libtool > >> version? Introducing the darwin bits piecemeal would not b

Re: Update libtool?

* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 07:01:48PM CEST: > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > >> That said, updating in trunk is a different matter. There, the question > >> IMHO is mostly which libtool version to update to. The git version may > >> still have a regression or two, but 2.2.4 doesn

Re: [PATCH] caret diagnostics

* Tom Tromey wrote on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 06:52:24PM CEST: > I'm sympathetic to the idea that switching to caret output by default > will break things. However, I don't think that GCS-style ranges are > necessarily any more reality-proof, because I am skeptical that most > tool developers read th

Re: [PATCH] caret diagnostics

* Tom Tromey wrote on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 07:39:57PM CEST: > > FWIW -- the gcc-output-parsing tools I care most about are actually > usually parsing the output of 'make', which is already full of random > undigestible text that must be ignored. Caret diagnostics are > extremely unlike to break t

Re: Please, do not use the merged revisions log as the commit message when merging

* Daniel Berlin wrote on Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 09:18:01PM CEST: > It's listed on the wiki that explains how to maintain branches :) It should be on svnwrite.html, or at least a pointer to the wiki page should be. Cheers, Ralf

Re: Defining a common plugin machinery

* Brendon Costa wrote on Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 02:42:19AM CEST: > What platforms do we want to support? I can think of the following > categories: > * Windows (cygwin/mingw) > As i understand the issue (I am not very familiar with this) you can't > have unresolved references in a plugin back to the

Re: autoconf 2.61 on debian etch and GCC

nt from mine). The 'set x ..; shift' is to accommodate for old (non-POSIX) shells that error out on 'set --', not sure if gcc has a policy against this kind of change. (FWIW, the "|#_!!_#|" in the line is intentional and not a bug.) I'd be interested in other

Re: autoconf 2.61 on debian etch and GCC

* Andreas Schwab wrote on Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:58:56PM CEST: > To avoid expanding $progname twice: > > eval "set x \"\$progname\" $ac_configure_args" Indeed; thanks! Updated proposed patch (I have no maintainer privs). :ADDPATCH configure: ChangeLog: 2007-07

Re: top-level configure

roval nor commit rights, neither to gcc nor to binutils src, and have only done casual testing. Please Cc: me on replies. Cheers, Ralf ChangeLog: 2007-07-23 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * configure.ac (TOPLEVEL_CONFIGURE_ARGUMENTS, baseargs):

Re: top-level configure

configure options to all subdirectory `configure' invocations. > > Now it doesn't seem to work as I expect when I pass --quiet to the > > top-level configure script. [...] > ChangeLog: > 2007-07-23 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * configure.ac (T

Re: missing libtool sources?

same holds for the other files generated thusly from the Makefile. Would this patch eliminate further doubts? If no, could you suggest an improvement? Thanks, Ralf 2007-08-06 Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Makefile.am (edit): Do not warn against manual editing for the

Re: missing libtool sources?

Hello Paolo, * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:05:47AM CEST: >> I think we should adjust the Libtool sources in this case. [...] >> Would this patch eliminate further doubts? If no, could you suggest an >> improvement? > > It does look like a good idea. Thanks. I applied that.

Re: Bootstrap failure (on FreeBSD)

Hello, * Andrew Pinski wrote on Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 11:18:33AM CEST: > > Rerun the command without the ">/dev/null 2>&1", libtool likes to say > that PIC mode will give the same output as non PIC mode (which is not > always true). Using -no-suppress on the libtool command line avoids this; you

Re: -Wparentheses lumps too much together

freetds.org> writes: > > Yes, I know beginners get confused by and/or precedence. But > *every* language that I know of that has operator precedence places > 'and' before 'or'. FWIW, Bourne shell doesn't, && and || have equal precedence there. That's a bit off-topic though, as it's not an argu

<    1   2