On November 8, 2014 9:00:02 AM CST, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
>On 7 November 2014 16:56, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> On 11/7/2014 9:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 11/07/2014 04:07 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>&g
On November 8, 2014 9:04:14 AM CST, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
>
>
>On November 8, 2014 9:00:02 AM CST, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>>On 7 November 2014 16:56, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/7/2014 9:25 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>&
Hi
With gcc, newlib, and binutils head, arm-rtems and arm-eabi both
die building libgcc2.c for the Thumb. I don't know if this is a recent
gcc change or binutils having added some new error checking. Anyone
got any ideas?
/users/joel/test-gcc/b-arm-eabi-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
-B/users/joel/test-
e we need to
> issue a last call to maintainers caring about those targets to fill in
> this information, and failing that deprecate them.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
On 11/10/2014 10:59 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2014 10:32 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good. Sorry, if I missed some relatively recent development: i
d be able to duplicate this. But if you need a
preprocessed file, I will send one.
/users/joel/test-gcc/b-arm-eabi-gcc/./gcc/xgcc
-B/users/joel/test-gcc/b-arm-eabi-gcc/./gcc/ -nostdinc
-B/users/joel/test-gcc/b-arm-eabi-gcc/arm-eabi/thumb/newlib/ -isystem
/users/joel/test-gcc/b-arm-eabi-gcc/arm-
On 11/11/2014 9:27 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>>> Fix is committed to trunk at
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=217341.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Terry
>>&g
sually very similar to another CPU-elf and I generally ask for reviews to
make sure it is the right thing to do.
This also covers RTEMS specific runtime port files.
>Thanks,
>Matthew
--joel (from a mobile device, forgive brevity and typos)
the MAINTAINERS file accordingly, and Happy Hacking!
-- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about
RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985
If not, then I will prepare patches to fix the spelling. :)
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available(256) 722-9985
complex approach, this usually can be done in a simpler way
> with a machine-specific pass that runs at the end of the RTL pipeline.
>
Isn't this similar to needing to fill a delay slot after a branch
instruction? My recollection
is that some SPARC and MIPS have to deal with that.
--
J
t a really useful git bisect on the arm
yet (results I have are posted) but no one has even commented.
For completeness, the avr and m32c PRs are:
+ avr: ICE GCC PR63752
+ m32c: ICE GCC PR64546
Thanks.
--joel
On 1/9/2015 5:12 AM, Christian Bruel wrote:
> Hi Ramana,
>
> any chance t
-qual -Wmissing-format-attribute
-Woverloaded-virtual -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
-Wno-overlength-strings -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.
-I/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc/gcc -I/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc/gcc/.
-I/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc/gcc/../include
-I/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc/gcc/../l
On January 9, 2015 4:00:38 PM CST, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
>On Fri, 2015-01-09 15:05:52 -0600, Joel Sherrill
> wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> Does anyone else see this? There is a semi-colon at the end of
>> gcc/config/arm/arm.h:771 which I don't think should be the
have taken a couple of swings at this in the past but
never gotten a solution. I am hoping we are luckier this time. :)
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a
On 1/12/2015 10:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Joel Sherrill writes:
>
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/f77-edit-x-out.f -Os output pattern test, is 1 2 3
>> 1 2 3
>>
>> , should match ^1 2 3(
>> |
>> |)1 2 3(
>> |
>> |)$
> Where is the \r g
On 1/12/2015 1:14 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 1/12/2015 10:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Joel Sherrill writes:
>>>
>>>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/g77/f77-edit-x-out.f -Os output pattern test, is 1 2 3
>>>> 1 2 3
>
On 1/12/2015 2:49 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> run.txt is the cut and paste of the log file which reflects DejaGNU's
>> view of the run.
> Which means that it hopefully matches every bit of the original output
> and that no editor interferes
On 1/12/2015 3:18 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> Am 12.01.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Joel Sherrill:
>> That was very close.
>>
>> cat out.txt | \
>>perl -e '$in = join("", ); if ($in =~ m/^1 2 3(\n|\r\n|\r)1 2
>> 3(\n|\r\n|\r)((\
1:13: warning: incompatible implicit
declaration of built-in function 'realloc'
../../../gcc/libgcc/emutls.c:171:13: note: include '' or
provide a declaration of 'realloc'
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp
to end up with details in one section
and a reference in another. I am wondering if there are some common
questions users ask about options which could be addressed like this.
Disabling C++ exceptions and RTTI plus the floating point options for
performance which usually come up in Intel C vs GCC be
llowed for
warnings. It is nice to know when adding an option actually is needed.
>- Gary
--joel
d their relationship
to others in a sentence of two if needed for user clarification.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available(256) 722-9985
is conformant --*/
return 0;
}
What's the consensus?
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available(256) 722-9985
On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>> I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in the C++
>> standards, I thought there were plenty of language lawyers here. :)
> s/glibc/libstdc++/ and they have thei
On 1/23/2015 9:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22/01/15 16:07 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 1/22/2015 3:44 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think this is a glibc issue but since this method is defined in
On 1/23/2015 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 23/01/15 10:53 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Is there a better way to automate a signature compliance? To tweak
>> what they have done?
> Testing member function signatures for compliance is inherently
> flawed, they just s
t;
>No, everyone sees it. Spammers are trying to write to the wiki or
>something and are DOSing the machine.
Yesterday I was teaching a class and 7 of us were fetching newlib from git. It
was around 20 CST but once we cloned, we were done.
I hope we were not the DOS.
--joel
anonymous mode, or ssh-authenticated? The former is
>> usually throttled as the load rises, the latter is not.
>>
>> jeff
>
>I was using anonymous mode.
We were also using anonymous mode.
>Steve Ellcey
--joel
On 1/27/2015 1:31 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On January 27, 2015 11:39:13 AM CST, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 09:36 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 01/27/15 09:20, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 08:02 -0800, H.J. Lu wrot
optimization
>>> those are at risk of failing in a future release. It would be nice to have
>>> a guaranteed-to-work future-proof idiom for doing this. Do we have one,
>>> short
>>> of retreating to assembly code?
Or GCC specific code.
I considered a special
x7120a9 execute
../../gcc-4.9-branch/gcc/reorg.c:3966
Please submit a full bug report,
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available
Thank you for doing this! It cloned for me on the first try.
Any particular reason, the repo is called newlib-cygwin.git
and not the more general newlib.git. Cygwin isn't the
only user of newlib.
--joel
On 3/10/2015 10:38 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Hi fellow developers,
>
>
r the v850 and have managed to build RTEMS
for all targets using this toolset.
--joel sherrill
On 3/22/2015 5:39 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Joel Sherrill a écrit:
>> I thought I would pass along a couple of data points from
>> the *-rtems targets.
>>
>> Fourteen *-rtems target build OK on the head. The following
>> do not even complete building gcc+newl
On 3/23/2015 12:28 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 03/22/2015 09:31 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> On 03/20/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> We've come a long way towards the release criteria of zero P1 bugs.
>>>
>> I thought I would pass along a couple of d
d on the grep, the .4byte directives are referencing a bogus symbol.
Does this look like a GCC bug? If so, I will file a PR with the preprocessed
source.
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
As
On 4/15/2015 10:38 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 04:10:33PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Based on the grep, the .4byte directives are referencing a bogus symbol.
>>
>> Does this look like a GCC bug?
> Yes, unless you have some horrible asm there refere
Hi
with nios2-rtems on gcc 4.9.2, we are getting undefineds
for some atomic primitives. Are these implemented or is
some magic bit of configurery missing for nios-rtems?
__sync_fetch_and_add_4 is missing on a simple C++ IO streams
sanity test.
Thanks
-- Joel Sherrill
Ask me about RTEMS: a
On 04/18/2015 09:06 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 04/18/2015 07:35 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
with nios2-rtems on gcc 4.9.2, we are getting undefineds
for some atomic primitives. Are these implemented or is
some magic bit of configurery missing for nios-rtems?
__sync_fetch_and_add_4 is
_sync built-ins in the 4.9 branch, it has
> switched to the __atomic ones which should be provided by libatomic,
> if that exists for the target.
This is with 4.9.2. This is the only RTEMS target giving this error so
I must
be missing the magic bit of configurery for it.
/users/joel/rtem
Hi
Just wanting to confirm with someone PowerPC knowledgeable that
the -mspe option was indeed removed on the master and the
documentation needs to be updated to reflect this.
Thanks.
--joel
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018, 4:54 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> Hi Joel,
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 04:21:25PM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > Just wanting to confirm with someone PowerPC knowledgeable that
> > the -mspe option was indeed removed on the master and the
> >
t number of users. People have to
find it and then integrate it on their own. Don't make it hard for folks to
find and use your work.
* Something else entirely...
>
> If there is any interest in incorporating this work into GCC, please
> advise.
>
I think so but I am just one voice from the RTEMS community. But I think
any M0 user would be pleased.
--joel
>
> Thanks,
> Daniel Engel
>
gaps.
I know Ada is traditionally more strongly typed than C/C++, but tf it can
be done for Ada programs reliably, why could it not be reliable in C?
>
> (Array transformations and struct splitting, on the other hand, can be
> useful.)
>
--joel
>
> Ian
>
>
>
>
could be we need an extra -Wxxx but
we end up spotting these with Doxygen.
Anything we are missing?
Thanks.
--joel
ean?
>
That's how I read it and that would not be a warning IMO.
Back to a point in my original email that seems to have been missed.
Doxygen reports this as a warning. I would just like the option to find it
with gcc as well.
And not checking system headers is reasonable in general.
elf-gcc -S -mcpu=cortex-a53 -O2 tmp.c -ftree-vectorize -fno-inline
-fdump-rtl-all -fno-vect-cost-model -dp -fdump-rtl-combine-all
-fdump-tree-optimized -o -
From 7e744509575030ca5b3fa6042d02d27171fbfbfd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joel Hutton
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:10:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] M
Ok with me if no one steps up and the downstream projects like Debian gets
notice. This is just a reflection of this architecture's status in the
world.
--joel
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 4:13 AM Richard Biener wrote:
>
> ia64 has no maintainer anymore so the following deprecates it
>
ic block?
On 14/06/2019 22:34, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:52:42AM +, Joel Hutton wrote:
>> A summary of the behaviour is:
>> when combining A -> B, the register equivalence notes of A are checked, the
>> register notes of B are not checked.
pc=$BUILD/host-tools --with-isl=$BUILD/host-tools --disable-shared
--disable-nls --disable-threads --disable-tls --enable-checking=yes
--enable-languages=c,c++,fortran --with-newlib --with-pkgversion=unknown
Thread model: single
gcc version 10.0.0 20190612 (experimental) (unknown)
From 7e744509575030ca5
/projects/cxx-status.html#cxx17
Thanks.
--joel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:07 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 20:05, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I was double checking the C++17 support in GCC for someone and the text
> at
> > this URL states
> > the support is expe
Hello everyone,
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 04:53:17PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> At Cauldron this weekend Joel offered to adjust his git hooks
> (https://github.com/brobecke/git-hooks), which are already used by gdb
> and glibc, to meet GCC's needs. Separately, Joseph volunteered
f yes, here is an example:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2019-09/msg00041.html
--
Joel
> > You mean the email notification sent by the hooks when a commit
> > gets pushed? If yes, here is an example:
> >
> > https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2019-09/msg00041.html
>
> Thank you, Joel! I got a little worried how to best parse that ;-),
> but t
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 3:12 PM Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
> On 9/20/19 4:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause
> wrote:
> >> I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
> >> multithreading
> >>
> >> GCC. Not sure if its a good idea du
note to confirm that the documentation has now been
moved to the git-hooks github page: https://github.com/adacore/git-hooks
Don't hesitate to reach out to me, if you have questions, or would
like some help configuring the hooks.
--
Joel
ould suggest consideration for dumping into a buffer and having an
external
agent (e.g. debugger, JTAG based program, etc) retrieve it.
RTEMS programs generally don't exit and often have no networking. You have
to
have flexibility. No one is forcing a singular output media -- just
flexibility.
I'd love to see decision and MCDC coverage support .
--joel
>
> > Martin
>
> David
>
>
Hi Joseph,
Apologies for the slow replies. The end of this week has been
pretty packed, and next week will be as well. But I will make
sure we answer every questions and suggestions you have!
On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 02:25:59PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019, Joel Brobec
re allowed for ref patterns
> outside refs/heads.
OK.
--
Joel
ement.
You want to say that, before branch "" gets created, you want
to verify that a branch named either "devel/" or "releases/"
does exist? And probably also that the commit in branch ""
is already present in the branch that already exists?
IIUC, I think this one is highly specialized, and shoud be done
in the update-hook script. Would that be OK?
--
Joel
, this will trigger an email that looks like this:
| Subject: [repository_name] Created tag v0.1
| X-Act-Checkin: repository_name
| X-Git-Author: Test Suite
| X-Git-Refname: refs/tags/v0.1
| X-Git-Oldrev: 0000
| X-Git-Newrev: c4c1e91cddc3d48a
tags such as releases?
>
> I think signing future release tags is probably appropriate.
FWIW (with my GDB Release Manager hat, this time), some people have
asked about it shortly after GDB switched over to Git. I've been
signing them ever since.
--
Joel
created one called refs/heads/devel/foo or
> refs/users/someone/heads/foo. Our naming conventions mean that all
> branches in refs/heads/ should be called master, devel/something or
> releases/something. But it's easy for someone to get a "git push" command
> wrong so that it would create a badly named branch.
Could you rely on the update-hook script for that?
--
Joel
hink we can make
it work:
One config to list the naming scheme for branches
One config to list the naming scheme for tags
I just want to be careful to also consider how all the options
are interacting with each other. In this case, we were able to
combine two requirements into one, so that addresses my concern.
--
Joel
t is something that you are trying to replicate
from the SVN days, and whether it still have enough value that
you would want to crowd the email subject with that piece of
information?
Perhaps the answer to my questions are somewhere in the middle,
and it is sufficient to have it in the email body alone?
--
Joel
chitecture? I think the MIPS generates an illegal
instruction and you end up doing TLS in there. It would be
easier if we could configure gcc to make subroutine calls
to __tls_get_addr() instead generically?
Anything else about TLS and run-time requirements we
should know?
--
Joel Sher
not a problem
to build up to date cross tools on currently.
Jakub
--joel
stable and very rarely change.
--joel
On 5/1/2017 10:47 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 5/1/2017 5:48 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sat, 29 Apr 2017, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
We also still have to agree on the target triples for the new port.
If you have any thoughts on this, I'd love to hear them.
It seems fairly obvious
%define mpc_version1.0.3
%define gmp_version6.1.2
The gcc-7.1.0/INSTALL/prerequisites.html seem to be
out of date. I am sure the minimum is lower than what
I ended up using.
What are the correct minimums for gcc 7.1?
Thanks.
-joel
On 5/3/2017 4:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 3 May 2017 at 06:23, carl hansen wrote:
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 18:17 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
With gcc 6.3.0, we have this in our build recipe:
%define mpfr_version 2.4.2
%define
On 1/12/2017 11:25 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 11:22:58AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
I am looking at the RTEMS x86 TLS support. When -fPIC is
specified, gcc generates calls to ___tls_get_addr(). But
when it is not specified, there are no external calls.
To make sure we
around?
RTEMS also has a number of "minority targets" and we have seen
breakages take a long time to get fixed. Most of our targets
use gcc 7.1.0 but two have to use 4.9.x, one uses 4.8.3, and
one is at 6.3.0.
Cheers,
Oleg
--joel
ew built-in functions),
but not for the old libquadmath APIs.
This may be a stupid question but with the focus of this
discussionon glibc, what does this all mean for non-glibc
targets?
--joel
On 8/8/2017 4:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Joel Sherrill wrote:
This may be a stupid question but with the focus of this
discussionon glibc, what does this all mean for non-glibc
targets?
Well, Jakub recently updated parts of libquadmath from glibc (only the
functions
rPC board (and the PowerPC has its own issues) but with
a rack every 50m down a 1.5km linear accelerator, they use
what they have until it breaks.
That said, it shouldn't impact GCC deprecation decisions.
--joel
jeff
ps. And since I maintain multiple affected ports, I'm a bit biased.
On 1/12/2018 5:40 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 05:29:29PM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
What's the list of targets under consideration?
Anything that still uses cc0 when the cull is made.
Current targets using cc0 are:
h8300, v850, cris, pdp11, vax,
ng
Amiga alive are a different animal
Is cc0 conversion enough to get m68k off the chopping block?
[1] Interestingly, the sparc, arm, powerpcspe, rs6000, and i386 are
all larger .md files. The i386 is 2.5 times larger.
--joel
Segher
On 1/17/2018 11:54 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
following a discussion at IRC about an upcoming deadline to register GCC
as an independent organization for Google Summer of Code 2018 (GSoC), I
have volunteered to serve as the org-admin for GCC if:
- there is not another volunteer (so step
t hosted at github. Larger projects are often
self-hosted. Does this list cover all GNU, Savannah, sourceware.org,
Apache, KDE, *BSD, Mozilla, etc projects?
You might get lucky and some like RTEMS and FreeBSD (I think) have
a github mirror. But github is not the entire universe of free and
ope
+ docs go?
Is cppreference.com an appropriate place to link to?
--joel
Gerald
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq.html
□ http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/
□ http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/FAQ.html
□ http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/whats_new.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/l
arching and looking at online dictionaries, it looks like filename is
the currently preferred form.
--joel
>
> Gerald
>
gt;
For sure examples are needed so there are test cases to use for reference.
If you want anything improved in any free software project, sponsoring
developers
is always a good thing. If you sponsor the right developers. :)
I'm not discouraging you. I just trying to turn this into somethi
ld distributions matter. Particularly
those targeting enterprise users. And those are glacially slow.
As an aside, it was not being able to build the RTEMS documentation that
pushed me off RHEL 6 as my primary personal environment last year. I wanted
to be using the oldest distribution I thought was in use in our community.
--joel
RTEMS
>
not using gold?
The errors are like this:
Executing on host: /users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-m32r/gcc/xgcc
-B/users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-m32r/gcc/
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/fprintf.c
/users/joel/test-gcc/gcc-svn/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute
On 02/01/2011 04:54 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
There are ~100 failures on each *-rtems* target
in the latest test runs when various lto related
flags are on. The symbols in questions are in the
RTEMS libraries which are picked up via the
-B... argument
On 02/01/2011 04:54 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01/02/2011 02:33, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Should LTO work with a target not using gold?
Yes, it should, but some work is needed at the binutils end. I am testing
the attached two patches at the moment; the idea is to have fully-debugged
support for
00407.html
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes67336
# of unexpected failures699
# of expected failures223
# of unresolved testcases128
# of unsupported tests1233
/users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc version 4.6.0 20110123
(experimental) [
.
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
In the past few days, something has regressed
on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures
and ~100 of those were LTO related. David Korn's
patch see
On 02/07/2011 01:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/11 11:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi,
In the past few days, something has regressed
on the sparc. Revision 169143 only
On 02/07/2011 02:27 PM, Denis Chertykov wrote:
2011/2/7 Joel Sherrill:
There are two targets which cannot build C -- avr and lm32:
+ avr - http://gcc.gnu.org/PR47534
I have committed the fix r169896
Please somebody close the bug.
I can't login to bugzilla. (Probably I forgot my logi
On 02/07/2011 02:27 PM, Denis Chertykov wrote:
2011/2/7 Joel Sherrill:
There are two targets which cannot build C -- avr and lm32:
+ avr - http://gcc.gnu.org/PR47534
I have committed the fix r169896
Thanks. avr-rtems now compiles.
Please somebody close the bug.
I can't login to bug
On 02/08/2011 09:34 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/07/11 12:47, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 01:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/07/11 11:51, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Hi
ndard extensions are generally
not acceptable.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Development
joel.sherr...@oarcorp.comOn-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available (256) 722-9985
executables to get unified
coverage data. We abstract away physical
address into offsets into methods and file/line.
Does generating a .gcno from this merged data
sound feasible?
Thoughts, insights, comments appreciated.
Thanks.
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research& Develop
ever introduces a
critical edge...
David deserves a pat on the back. This is a nice way to
visualize this. It is complicated and hard to grok otherwise.
This would be a great addition to gcc internals documentation.
Especially if you could click on each pass and get to a description.
Paolo
--
not executed and
which branches were not fully executed.
The reports correlate the assembly language
with source code. For example,
reports for the sparc/erc32 are at
http://www.rtems.org/ftp/pub/rtems/people/joel/coverage/erc32/erc32.html
--
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research
101 - 200 of 574 matches
Mail list logo
