Jakub Jelinek on 2018/4/25 18:04 wrote:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425/
The first release candidate for GCC 8.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8.0.1-RC-20180425
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 259636.
I have so
2013/5/3 reed kotler :
> Should a return statement be emitted in a function that has the naked
> attribute.
>
> There seems to be some confusion here and apparently disagreement between
> various
> gcc compilers.
>
IMHO, it depends on how you define the word 'naked' for a function
and how you expe
2013/5/3 reed kotler :
> This issue of naked function attribute support for Mips has come up in the
> context of LLVM and in regards to maintaining compatibility with gcc.
>
> It's my understanding that the idea of the naked function attribute was
> rejected for gcc Mips.
>
> I'm curious as to why.
2013/5/3 Chung-Ju Wu :
>
> Or do you think 'naked' is still useful for some other cases in mips porting?
> You can implement it and submit the patch to gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
> and I believe the mips maintainers are willing to have review with you. :)
>
Oops~ I j
2013/5/13 Basile Starynkevitch :
>>
>> This would be for personal use and not necessarily proposed for
>> general release.
>
> For personal use it is so much simpler to just build GCC 4.8 and use it.
> No good reason to stick to a patched GCC 4.7
>
> Cheers.
> --
I guess Gene was concerning about
2013/5/29 Diego Novillo :
> On 2013-05-28 11:55 , lluvia_li...@lavabit.com wrote:
>>
>> How can I reach that information?
>
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org
>
> See the section 'Release Series and Status'.
>
>
> Diego.
>From the section, you can find the information by
reviewing the 'changes' of each mainta
2013/5/30 Michael Witten :
> It would probably be a good idea to mention:
>
> contrib/download_prerequisites
>
> on this page:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
>
> and probably on this page:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Witten
Is this
Hi Balaji,
I was building a native gcc with trunk r200117,
but I noticed the following code fragment cause -Wenum-compare warning:
[gcc/c-family/array-notation-common.c]
483 /* This function is used by C and C++ front-ends. In C++, additional
484 tree codes such as TARGET_EXPR must be e
2013/6/18 Steve Ellcey :
> On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 21:36 +0200, Oleg Endo wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for not having an answer. I got curious, because just yesterday I
>> was looking at this one
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55190
>> and thought that this is related, although it doesn't se
2013/6/16 Chung-Ju Wu :
> Hi Balaji,
>
> I was building a native gcc with trunk r200117,
> but I noticed the following code fragment cause -Wenum-compare warning:
>
>
> [gcc/c-family/array-notation-common.c]
>
> 483 /* This function is used by C and C++ front-ends
2013/6/22 Ian Lance Taylor :
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> A make clean followed by a make in the libgcc directory results in:
>>
>> ../../../../gcc/libgcc/config/i386/cpuinfo.c:23:25: fatal error:
>> auto-target.h: No such file or directory
>> #include "auto-target.h"
2013/6/22 Andreas Schwab :
> Chung-Ju Wu writes:
>
>> clean:
>> - -rm -f auto-target.h libgcc_tm.h libgcc.map
>> + -rm -f libgcc_tm.h libgcc.map
>> -rm -f libgcc_tm.stamp stamp-h stmp-ldirs
>
2013/6/22 Ian Lance Taylor :
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:17 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>> Like this?
>>
>> ===
>> --- libgcc/Makefile.in (revision 200306)
>> +++ libgcc/Makefile.in (working copy)
>&
r software floating point library. None of general gcc code is required
to be changed for this nds32 port.
We have already signed FSF agreement and are proposing Shiva Chen
and myself (Chung-Ju Wu), both of Andes compiler engineers,
as nds32 port maintainers:
Index: M
2013/7/9, David Given :
> I'm working on a gcc backend for an architecture. The architecture has
> instructions for indexed array access; so, ld r0, (r1, r2) is equivalent
> to r0 = r1[r2] where r1 is a int32_t*.
>
> I'm representing this in the .md file with the following pattern:
>
> (define_insn
On 7/11/13 4:23 AM, Hendrik Greving wrote:
Hi, I have a hard time finding a good description of how old, obsolete
and now poisoned target macros and backend switches had been replaced
with. Examples are TARGET_SWITCHES, or CAN_DEBUG_WITHOUT_FP. I am
porting from a very old compiler version. Is th
On 7/10/13 5:51 AM, David Given wrote:
I think I have found a bug. This is in stock gcc 4.8.1...
My backend does not use the 'enabled' attribute; therefore the following
code in insn-attr.h kicks in:
#ifndef HAVE_ATTR_enabled
#define HAVE_ATTR_enabled 0
#endif
Therefore the following
On 7/28/13 8:16 AM, David Given wrote:
I am having a great deal of trouble getting register elimination (and
stack frame layouts in general) working properly on my architecture.
There is some fundamental issue I'm simply not getting here.
[...]
Weirdness (1): I never see ARG_POINTER_REGNUM used
On 7/10/13 5:51 AM, David Given wrote:
> I think I have found a bug. This is in stock gcc 4.8.1...
>
> My backend does not use the 'enabled' attribute; therefore the following
> code in insn-attr.h kicks in:
>
> #ifndef HAVE_ATTR_enabled
> #define HAVE_ATTR_enabled 0
> #endif
>
> Therefore
2013/8/14 Vladimir Makarov :
> On 13-08-12 11:13 AM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
>>
>> Hi, Vladimir,
>>
>> Apparently the issue that David mentioned has already been fixed earlier:
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/r198344
>>
>> 2013-04-26 Vladimir Makarov
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>> It's my pleasure to announce the appointment of Steven Bosscher
>>> as RTL optimizers reviewer.
>>>
>>> Congratulations and Happy Hacking, Steven!
>>>
>>> Gerald
>>>
>>> PS:
2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> Hi,
>
> and sorry for nitpicking, but lately when we run
> g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp we are all seeing a:
>
> WARNING: profopt.exp does not support dg-do
>
> (lots of examples in gcc-testresults). Any idea what's going wrong?
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo.
I did `make ch
2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/21/2013 05:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> ... I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the only
>> possible "culprit" seems this commit:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
>>
>> Teresa, can you have a look?
>
> I
2013/9/13 Chen Gang :
> On 09/13/2013 01:09 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 09/11/2013 10:38 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> Hello all:
>>>
[...]
>>> currently, I only send 3 bugs: Bug58256, Bug58400, Bug58401, the other
>>> bugs may duplicate with these bugs, so I do not send (if they are also
>>> valuable, I
2013/12/4 BELBACHIR Selim :
> Hi,
>
> My target has :
> - 2 registers class to store SImode (like m68k, data $D & address $A).
> - moves from wide offset MEM to $D or $A (ex: mov d($A1+50),$A2 ormov
> d($A1+50),$D1)
> - conditional moves from offset MEM to $D or $A but with a restriction :
2014-03-26 18:24 GMT+08:00 Svante Signell :
> Hi,
>
> With the recent changes of not using automake for the build, only
> auto{re}conf I have problems generating an updated Makefile.in from a
> modified Makfile.am. Source is gcc-4.9-4.9-20140322
>
For gcc-4.9, I always use automake-1.11.1 and auto
Sorry there is a typo on step 2 command...
2014-03-27 13:36 GMT+08:00 Chung-Ju Wu :
>
> 2. Build them by your own:
> (As usual, separating build folder and source folder is recommended.)
>
> $ /path/to/src/automake-1.11.1/configure --prefix=/path/to/local
> $ make
> $ make i
2013/2/25 Jeffrey Walton :
> Hi All,
>
> I read the relase notes on GCC 4.8
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html) and -Og caught my eye (the
> bulleted item is below).
[deleted]
>
> What "n" does -Og correspond to for -O and -g (i.e., -O1, -O2; -g2, -g3)?
[deleted]
> Is -Og -g3 a valid combi
2013/3/5 Jeffrey Walton :
> Hi All,
[...]
>
> void func (short);
> void short_test (void)
> { short x = 0;
>func(x);
> }
>
> From the bug report example above, the warning is telling me there
> would be a problem if `void func (short);` was not present since it
> would be assumed to be `void f
On 2023/12/12 07:43 UTC+8, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
On 12/11/23 16:19, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
nds32 support in Linux was removed last year:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Andes-Tech-NDS32-Removal
The support for glibc never made it upstream as far as I can tell either.
What are others th
On 2023/12/12 07:43 UTC+8, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
On 12/11/23 16:19, Andrew Pinski via Gcc wrote:
nds32 support in Linux was removed last year:
https://www.phoronix.com/news/Andes-Tech-NDS32-Removal
The support for glibc never made it upstream as far as I can tell either.
What are others th
31 matches
Mail list logo
