On 10/01/2011 08:03 AM, JonY wrote:
Hi,
I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since there aren't any
built-in defines to tell the 2 apart unless you include some headers
like _mingw.h.
Patch attached, comments?
On 10/1/2011 17:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 08:03 AM, JonY wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
>> os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since there aren't any
>> built-in defines to tell the 2 apart unless you include s
On 10/01/2011 11:48 AM, JonY wrote:
On 10/1/2011 17:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/01/2011 08:03 AM, JonY wrote:
Hi,
I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since there aren't any
built-in defines to tell the 2 ap
On Saturday 01 October 2011 07:03:35, JonY wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
> os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since there aren't any
> built-in defines to tell the 2 apart unless you include some headers
> like _mingw.h.
Are
On 10/1/2011 18:08, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 10/01/2011 11:48 AM, JonY wrote:
>> On 10/1/2011 17:15, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2011 08:03 AM, JonY wrote:
Hi,
I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this
On 10/1/2011 18:33, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Saturday 01 October 2011 07:03:35, JonY wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
>> os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since there aren't any
>> built-in defines to tell the 2 apart unless y
Hi,
> Thanks, but I am having problems sending a proper diff with the
> regenerated files, they have a lot of unrelated, even if I made sure I
> am using autoconf 2.64 and automake 1.11.1.
To be clear, regenerated files should **not** be part of the patch submitted
for review, but should definit
Hi all,
I have just committed as obvious a one-line patch to fix a regression
which is triggered by -fwhole-file:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179413
Should I backport to 4.6? And also to 4.5?
Moreover, I noticed that
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.1/gfortran/Code-Ge
> Yes, this will improve test coverage option's usability, but please
> provide the example to explain the issues.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
> > This patch disables early inlining when --coverage option is
> > specified. This improves coverage data in p
On Saturday 01 October 2011 12:15:42, JonY wrote:
> On 10/1/2011 18:33, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 October 2011 07:03:35, JonY wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
> >> os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-w64/ for this to work, since the
2011/6/14 Sharad Singhai (शरद सिंघई) :
> Sorry, Rietveld didn't send out the updated patch along with my mail.
> Here it is.
>
Hi, I tried this patch out on trunk it applies alright, and appears to
work fine, (haven't run the testsuite though) any plans on submitting
it for inclusion with mainline
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011, Michael Meissner wrote:
> Is this enough of a savings to continue on? I'm of two minds about it, one is
The thing to measure is not so much memory as startup time (how long it
takes to compile an empty source file), which is important for libraries
and programs using a cod
On 10/1/2011 19:16, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Thanks, but I am having problems sending a proper diff with the
>> regenerated files, they have a lot of unrelated, even if I made sure I
>> am using autoconf 2.64 and automake 1.11.1.
>
> To be clear, regenerated files should **not** be part of
2011/10/1 Pedro Alves :
> On Saturday 01 October 2011 12:15:42, JonY wrote:
>> On 10/1/2011 18:33, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> > On Saturday 01 October 2011 07:03:35, JonY wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I followed Paolo's suggestion with the os_defines.h trick. I duplicated
>> >> os/mingw32/ to os/mingw32-
--- arm.c.orig 2011-05-05 04:39:40.0 -0400
+++ arm.c 2011-08-19 13:48:21.548405102 -0400
@@ -19218,7 +19218,8 @@
|| ! (*insn_data[icode].operand[0].predicate) (target, tmode))
target = gen_reg_rtx (tmode);
- gcc_assert (GET_MODE (op0) == mode0 && GET_MODE (op1) == mod
On 09/30/2011 03:29 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 09/28/2011 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Tom de Vries
>>> wrote:
Richard,
I got a patch for PR50527.
The patch prevents
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> Yes, this will improve test coverage option's usability, but please
>> provide the example to explain the issues.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> > This patch disables early inlining when --coverage
There are couple more to add, but there are some complications
wrt. v8plus for those that I need to sort out first.
And also I haven't attempted to add the floating-point-and-halve
and related ops yet, see:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-09/msg00385.html
Committed to trunk.
gcc/
* con
On 09/29/2011 10:59 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Ok to commit ?
Ok. These patches are going also to 4_6-branch.
Paolo
Attached patch applied, thanks Paolo for applying it to 4.6 branch.
2011-10-01 François Dumont
* include/debug/vector (vector<>::erase(iterator, iterator): Check
Iain spotted a strange allocation pattern for an ACATS test on PowerPC/Darwin,
which turned out to be caused by this typo.
Tested on i586-suse-linux, applied on the mainline.
2011-10-01 Eric Botcazou
* ira-color.c (assign_hard_reg): Fix typo.
--
Eric Botcazou
Index: gcc/ira-color
I have updated PR/45890 with a test case.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45890
In any case, I am attaching a test case here as well.
Sharad
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> Yes, this will improve
Sorry, I didn't think about the mainline. Since you find it useful, I
will propose it for inclusion in the trunk as well.
Thanks,
Sharad
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:23 AM, Matt Rice wrote:
> 2011/6/14 Sharad Singhai (शरद सिंघई) :
>> Sorry, Rietveld didn't send out the updated patch along with my ma
Hi,
this minor issue remained open and miscategorized as C++ for many years.
I changed it tentatively to preprocessor and I think we can easily
resolve it as suggested by submitter: apparently there is a small memory
leak happening at beginning of incpath.c:split_quote_chain, and the
below se
Hi all,
while working on PR50547, I noticed some strange things about
resolve_formal_arglist, so I decided to clean it up a little. The
attached patch does a couple of things:
(1) It removes an error message ("Unable to find a specific INTRINSIC
procedure...") which simply does not make any sens
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> cxx_eval_logical_expression was assuming that a folded first operand of &&
> would be either boolean_true_node or boolean_false_node, but in fact it can
> be a constant with a typedef of bool, which doesn't compare equal with ==.
> So we sho
25 matches
Mail list logo
