Hi,
I am working on integrating GCC 4.1.x series into FreeBSD src/ tree.
I've been running with the new compiler on FreeBSD 7.0 for quite a while
now, but was hesitant to commit my changes because of a couple of
unsolved issues. I would really appreciate your input on the way to
overcome them.
On
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 01:54:16AM +0200, tbp wrote:
> >> Am i just wrong believing that ought to work?
> >
> >Yes.
> It's hard to argue with a terse compiler or maintainer. Perhaps i
> should have picked an easier target like
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html: "GCC will
> al
On 4/2/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe __declspec in Intel C++ compiler comes from:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dabb5z75.aspx
How is Microsoft documentation, the real documentation for Intel C++
compiler? Have you seen the Cell language extension document [1]?
On 4/2/07, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:23:21PM +0200, tbp wrote:
> Am i just wrong believing that ought to work?
Yes.
It's hard to argue with a terse compiler or maintainer. Perhaps i
should have picked an easier target like
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlined
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:11:06PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If the Windows version of GCC has to recognize __declspec to function
> >as a hosted compiler on Windows, then the work already needs to be done
> >to implement it. So what's the harm
On 4/2/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the Windows version of GCC has to recognize __declspec to function
as a hosted compiler on Windows, then the work already needs to be done
to implement it. So what's the harm in allowing it on other platforms?
If it makes it easier for Windows pr
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:16PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 4/2/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect I'd want this for x86 darwin as well.
> >
> >Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is
Hi!
I've applied for Google's Summer of Code 2007 with GCC as mentor
organization. I want to make GCC working faster on the algorithmic
level. I left out the detailed aims of the project, since i want to
discuss them with gcc developers/mentors first. Do you have any
suggestions what I should
On 4/2/07, Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ah ! A clear case of "all the world's a RISC" syndrome.
Actually I think it is a case of CSE/frowprop not doing the correct
thing for the addressing modes. So it might be the real problem is
the back-end's addressing mode cost are incorrect or
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20070402 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20070402/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Matt Thomas wrote:
For instance, gcc emits:
movab rpb,%r0
movab 100(%r0),%r1
cvtwl (%r1),%r0
but the movab 100(%r0),%r1 is completely unneeded, this should have
been emitted as:
movab rpb,%r0
cvtwl 100(%r0),%r0
Ah ! A clear case of "all the world's a
On 4/2/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/2/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suspect I'd want this for x86 darwin as well.
Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is wrong.
GCC for Linux/Darwin/any other OS besides Windows is not a Windows
compil
On 4/2/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is wrong.
GCC for Linux/Darwin/any other OS besides Windows is not a Windows
compiler and should not act like one. If people want to port their
code, they should write their code to be
On 4/2/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suspect I'd want this for x86 darwin as well.
Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is wrong.
GCC for Linux/Darwin/any other OS besides Windows is not a Windows
compiler and should not act like one. If people want to por
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:03 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Many x86 SSE source codes use __declspec. I'd like to make
__declspec available for Linux/x86. We can do one of the
following:
1. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for Linux/x86.
2. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for x86.
3. Add -mdeclspec.
Any comments?
I suspect I'd
On 4/2/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It won't work with
__declspec(align(16)) double x [4];
And the code should be converted over to use GCC style attributes.
So really the code should be something like:
#ifndef __WIN32__
#define __align16 __attribute__((align(16) ))
#else
#define
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 02:06:15PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/2/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Many x86 SSE source codes use __declspec. I'd like to make
> >__declspec available for Linux/x86. We can do one of the
> >following:
>
> Do the following in the sources:
> #ifndef __W
On 4/2/07, H. J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Many x86 SSE source codes use __declspec. I'd like to make
__declspec available for Linux/x86. We can do one of the
following:
Do the following in the sources:
#ifndef __WIN32__
#define __declspec(x)
#endif
or in the makefiles:
Add "-D__declspec(x
Many x86 SSE source codes use __declspec. I'd like to make
__declspec available for Linux/x86. We can do one of the
following:
1. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for Linux/x86.
2. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for x86.
3. Add -mdeclspec.
Any comments?
H.J.
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Ching, Jimen (US SSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of
> >> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are.
> >
> >Note; a bunch of -W options has the sentence "This
On 02/04/07, Ching, Jimen (US SSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of
> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are.
Note; a bunch of -W options has the sentence "This warning is enabled by -Wall".
But there are a few that doesn't, but they are in t
> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of
> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are.
The statement for -Wall says:
-Wall
All of the above `-W' options combined. This enables all the warnings about
constructions that some users consider questionable, and that are easy to avoi
"Andrew Pinski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe one of the MIPS maintainers can explain why this option exists
> in the first place.
> As far as I can tell this has option has existed before the egcs/gcc
> split. I still say the back-end should not worry about this and
> divide by zero should
Mayank Kumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1: I am keen on understanding how does the offset of L32 from
> _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ generated ? I mean if assembly is
>
> Movl [EMAIL PROTECTED](%ebx,%eax),%eax then how does is gets converted to mov
> 0xbd14(%eax,%ebx,1),%eax. I guessed that L3
Joe Buck wrote:
No, one does not have to adapt gradually. It is no harder to switch from
2.95 to 4.1.2 than it is to switch from 2.95 to 3.3. Either way, you'll
have to get out a C++ book, learn C++, and recode your code in actual C++.
There will be some cases where going to 3.3 will require f
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:23:21PM +0200, tbp wrote:
> Am i just wrong believing that ought to work?
Yes.
r~
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I have for a while been working on a tool that performs static
analysis
Ah, yeah, that I suspect would be a even better way to do this...
Itt would be nice if gcc/g++ had more support for static analysis
tools... Maybe with LTO.
Andrew Haley wrote:
Andrew Pinski writes:
> It seems wrong that the java front-end thinks we don't have to use
> the divide subroutine for MIPS. Really I think it is wrong that
> the mips back-end thinks it should enable by default trap on divide
> by zero.
I'm not sure about that: the MIPS
On 02/04/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-02 13:57]:
> Just out of curiosity, does any of those programs use -Werror?
No, otherwise the problems would have been found and fixed before.
Remember, there has always been a warning abo
While doing (or trying to) some cleanup thanks to -mcx16, i've been a
bit surprised that
<--< cut <--<
typedef int TItype __attribute__ ((mode (TI)));
TItype m_128;
void test(TItype x_128)
{
m_128 = __sync_val_compare_and_swap (&m_128, x_128, m_128);
}
#include
typedef __m128i foo_t;
//
* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-02 13:57]:
> Just out of curiosity, does any of those programs use -Werror?
No, otherwise the problems would have been found and fixed before.
Remember, there has always been a warning about this, but now it's an
error.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http:/
On 02/04/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-02 12:58]:
> >missing newline: 42
> >error: "xxx" redefined: 33
>
> Martin, are those programs compiled with -pedantic or -pedantic-errors
> enabled?
Nope.
Then, if the warnings are not
On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:52:22AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I think the problem is that we've not told libcpp what the correct
> narrow character set is. I suggest adding something like
>
> if (BITS_PER_UNIT >= 32)
> cpp_opts->narrow_charset = BYTES_BIG_ENDIAN ? "UTF-32BE" : "UTF-
* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-02 12:58]:
> >missing newline: 42
> >error: "xxx" redefined: 33
>
> Martin, are those programs compiled with -pedantic or -pedantic-errors
> enabled?
Nope.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
On 01/04/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We have some real numbers about these new errors now. I've compiled
the whole Debian archive in the last week for Gelato to test GCC 4.3
on IA64. Out of just slightly under 7000 packages in Debian, we have
the following new failures:
mis
Aurélien Benoit-Lévy writes:
> I have no idea of what is a gcc-4.2 snapshot ?
>
> Could you explain a bit.
Why, instead, do you not simply go to http://gcc.gnu.org/ and follow
thw link marked snapshots?
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire,
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On 4/1/07, David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The issue is that for some things (the java front-end) we need the
> > trapping behavior. I just want to optimize it if the divisor is known
> > to be non-zero. VRP knows, but by the time we generate the code it
>
Hi,
I have no idea of what is a gcc-4.2 snapshot ?
Could you explain a bit.
Thanks,
Aurélien
2007/3/30, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Aurélien Benoit-Lévy wrote:
> Do you have any idea of what went wrong and any idea of what should
> I do ?
Hum, I'd be tempted
Hi again,
Here is the err_make file.
Thanks,
Aurélien
2007/3/30, François-Xavier Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> out_make is the output of the make. In fact it is the output of the
> make launch a second time. (To big otherwise.)
Yes, but it's missing the standard error file. Please use:
mak
> if not for the real compiler as such, what advantages would i get on
> using newer glibc, libstdc++ ?? would these features be tied to
> some kernel version linux-2.4 vs 2.6 ( something like thread
> support).
Let's step back a bit.
If you look at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
I have for a while been working on a tool that performs static analysis
of exception propagation through C/C++ code. It is very close to
complete (I estimate the first release within the month).
Implementing static analysis of C++ exception propagation in g++ alone
is not really possible well at l
hi
if not for the real compiler as such, what advantages would i get on using
newer glibc, libstdc++ ??
would these features be tied to some kernel version linux-2.4 vs 2.6 (
something like thread support).
thanks
ganesh
- Original Message
From: Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: J
42 matches
Mail list logo
