From: "David Edelsohn"
MPC-0.8 build fails on AIX due to libtool. The changes to libtool
between MPC-0.7 and MPC-0.8 rely on Bash-specific features. Manually
editing libtool to use Bash allowed the build to succeed.
Hi David,
Can you please be more specific about this problem? I've seen se
> -Original Message-
> From: Kaveh R. Ghazi [mailto:gh...@caip.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: Gerald Pfeifer; dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com;
> d...@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca; David Edelsohn; Weddington, Eric
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: MPC version 0
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> i386-unknown-freebsd (have results for mpc-0.8dev)
> Watch gcc-testresults, my first submission of building GCC trunk with
> mpc-0.8 (release) should appear there in a third of a day.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-11/msg00664.html
Gerald
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> A prerelease tarball of the upcoming mpc-0.8 is available here:
> http://www.multiprecision.org/mpc/download/mpc-0.8-dev.tar.gz
>
> This release is feature complete with respect to C99 and GCC's needs.
> So I expect to make this version be
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>> "Kaveh R. GHAZI" writes:
>>
>>> Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
>>> privately) the results of "make check". Also include your target
>>> triplet, and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
> i686-pc-cygwin
===
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> 2. i386-unknown-freebsd and i686-apple-darwin are generic, but
> config.guess will supply specific version numbers. What version
> should MPC be shown to work on? Any one of them would do?
For FreeBSD, I'd specify versions 6.x and above. Older versio
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> The platforms still needed for mpc-0.8 release testing are:
>
> i386-unknown-freebsd (have results for mpc-0.8dev)
Watch gcc-testresults, my first submission of building GCC trunk with
mpc-0.8 (release) should appear there in a third of a day.
Also, a
Byoungyoung Lee writes:
> If the optimization options provided in a different way,
> the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
>
> In the different executables,
> the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
> but I think that's not that big cha
"Kaveh R. GHAZI" writes:
Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
privately) the results of "make check". Also include your target
triplet,
and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
Wow we've gotten a lot of results, thanks everyone! But we're still missing
> I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
> to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
> of the OS versions are outdated.
>
> I've included the list from the page
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
>
> Should we update:
>
> 1. solar
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Should we update:
1. solaris2.10 -> 2.11
2.
Basile,
I understand your constraints and concerns.
I personally would also be happy to see ICI and pass manager in GCC soon,
BUT it was delay on our side that prevented submission/checking of the patch,
so I am just taking a pragmatic approach of preparing an ICI patch first
(well, actually not
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Grigori Fursin wrote:
Hi Basile et al,
My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
events, and make
your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified* gcc-4.5 brings some
va
That's very reasonable and it's our eventual goal too so we will start
discussions
about that in detail whenever ICI is clean.
By the way, just to mention that I am working with a student (Yuri) to
provide/understand/describe/characterize
performance dependencies and interaction between passes
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Grigori Fursin wrote:
> Hi Basile et al,
>
>> My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
>> events, and make
>> your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
>> When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified* gcc-4.5 brings
>> some value, GCC
>
If the optimization options provided in a different way,
the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
In the different executables,
the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
but I think that's not that big change.
What I'd like to do is to make t
Hi Basile et al,
> My suggestion to ICI friends is : just propose quickly your needed plugin
> events, and make
> your ICI a GPLv3 plugin.
> When you can show that your ICI plugin to an *unmodified* gcc-4.5 brings some
> value, GCC
> people will perhaps start to
> listen and look inside.
Just t
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Ah, you mean like doing the tuples conversion as plugin? Or to
build the cgraph infrastructure and IPA optimization infrastructure
as plugin? I guess what you say is - "stop developing
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> Ah, you mean like doing the tuples conversion as plugin? Or to
>> build the cgraph infrastructure and IPA optimization infrastructure
>> as plugin? I guess what you say is - "stop developing gcc! develop
>
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
(stop reading now, what follows is pure cynicism - I have to do it, because
the following can't be let un-responded, rather than un-answered)
Actually, I tend to believe that the plu
If the optimization options provided in a different way,
the same source codes would be compiled into different executables.
In the different executables,
the register allocation or instruction orders might be easily changed,
but I think that's not that big change.
What I'd like to do is to make t
21 matches
Mail list logo
