Hi,
I am using a cross compiler "sparclet-aout-gcc". I have written my own
main function and does not link to libgcc's main function while
linking is done. I m not able to initialize the global objects The
generated executable format is "a.out".
For example:
when I execute the following program
The SC has decided to add Mike Stump as maintainer of the Darwin
port, joining Stan Shebs and Dale Johannesen. Thanks for
volunteering, Mike, and please add yourself to the MAINTAINERS
file in the appropriate spot.
Peter Barada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
>>> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
>>> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
>>> available(such as gcc needing headers, and
>> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
>> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
>> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
>> available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc needing -lgcc-eh), so
>> even really fa
Peter Barada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
> have to repeat a few steps (build gcc twice, build glibc twice)
> because glibc and gcc assume that a near-complete environment is
> available(such as gcc needing headers, and glibc ne
zouq wrote:
> i found madd instruction in mips.md, but why when i compiled it with
> my cross-compile mipsel-linux-gcc as follows, mipsel-linux-gcc -mips4
> -O2 test.c -S i can`t find any madd instruction in test.s??
Basic questions like this are really more appropriate for the gcc-help
list. The
Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --exec-prefix=/usr/local --program-prefix=ppc-
--with-stabs -with-cpu=603 --target=powerpc-eabi --with-gnu-as=ppc-as
--with-gnu-ld=ppc-ld --enable-languages=c,c++
Try adding --with-newlib. You either have to use a combined tree so
that newlib will be a
On 2005-04-22, at 16:30, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
James E Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does anyone read the installation instructions?
Yes, but not everyone. And even people that read the docs can miss
the info if they can't figure out which part of the docs they a
On 2005-04-27, at 22:54, Karel Gardas wrote:
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC)= 2,456,727
Development Effort Estimate, Person-Years (Person-Months) = 725.95
(8,711.36)
(Basic COCOMO model, Person-Months = 2.4 * (KSLOC**1.05))
Schedule Estimate, Years (Months)
On 2005-04-28, at 01:35, Joe Buck wrote:
I will agree with you on this point, but more than half of the time
to bootstrap consists of the time to build the Java library, and
speeding
that up is a losing battle, as Sun keeps adding new stuff that
libgjc/classpath is then expected to clone, and the
On 2005-04-28, at 03:06, Peter Barada wrote:
Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want "make" to complete
instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain,
David Gressett wrote:
The attempt to make HTML documentation crashes:
make[1]: Entering directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `html'. Stop.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/jdg/gccbuild/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libada'
make: *** [html-target-libada]
> "Paul" == Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Maybe. Then again, maybe there are real problems here. The ranlib
Paul> one was already mentioned. And I wonder if libjava really needs to
Paul> bring the host to its knees, as it does.
Killing machines is only a secondary goal, if
On 2005-04-27, at 21:57, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
may not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared abou
>Well, yes. 1 second/file is still slow! I want "make" to complete
>instantaneously! Don't you?
Actually I want it to complete before I even start, but I don't want
to get too greedy. :)
What's really sad is that for cross-compilation of the toolchain, we
have to repeat a few steps (build gcc
>>> The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
>>> to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
>>> successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
>>>
>> Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
>>
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> What you say is true. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
>
> Let me point out the important part again: All I ever see people
> suggest is magic bullets.
>
> We should try, but by doing the hard work. Not by expecting magic.
Sure. CodeSourcery did hav
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:10 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
> >> affects people who compile the compiler; but the more gene
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> I have seen such complaints. Not about bootstrap times, no, that only
>> affects people who compile the compiler; but the more general case of
>> 'gcc takes forever to compile this program' does
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> >> Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
> >> >earlier. But since _nobody_ has compla
Matt Thomas wrote:
I like the more and simplier patterns approach but I'm wondering what
the general recommendation is?
If an optimization pass will re-recog after rewriting an insn, then it
is OK to have two separate patterns for two separate assembly insns.
Otherwise, the optimization pass will
Snapshot gcc-3.3-20050427 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.3-20050427/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.3 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_3-20050427
You'll
The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
about problems with cros
Having seen Joe's comment, I should say that I agree with him that a
lot of other projects' mailing lists are worse. However, that isn't
an excuse in my book.
zw
Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> >If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed
>> >earlier. But since _nobody_ has complained before you, I guess we
>> >can conclude that by far the majorit
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:13:21PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing
> lists have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many
> users will not post to them, either for fear of being ridiculed,
> or in the expection that they will not be hea
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:13 -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
> >
> >>>The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
> >>>
> >>And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
> >>may
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
may not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared about them, it would have bee
Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
Does anyone have a working recipe to build gcc as a cross compiler for
powerpc, to execute under cygwin
I've been able to compile binutils, and build the c/c++ compiler, but am
failing in:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-targe
>
> > "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava
> >> build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl.
> >> Maybe it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all
> >> at once...
> "Andrew" == Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava
>> build -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl.
>> Maybe it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all
>> at once... :-(
Andrew>
On Apr 27, 2005, at 5:15 AM, Neil Booth wrote:
Even better, you can turn of the warning with a cast, making your
intent explicit to the compiler, so there's every reason to have
it on by default.
And, if you don't like casts, you can (...)&255 or whatever.
On Apr 27, 2005, at 2:11 PM, Amir Fuhrmann wrote:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1
../gcc-3.4.3/configure --target=powerpc-eabi
powerpc-unknown-eabi?
Mike Stump wrote:
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
It would be nice if bootstrap emitted timestamps when it was started
and when it completed a stage so one could just look at the make output.
You can get them differenced for free by using:
time make boostrap
I know that. But
Does anyone have a working recipe to build gcc as a cross compiler for
powerpc, to execute under cygwin
I've been able to compile binutils, and build the c/c++ compiler, but am
failing in:
configure: error: No support for this host/target combination.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Er
On Apr 26, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Matt Thomas wrote:
It would be nice if bootstrap emitted timestamps when it was started
and when it completed a stage so one could just look at the make
output.
You can get them differenced for free by using:
time make boostrap
and written to a log file with
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 02:44, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Well, of course I'm not going to disagree with you, but I removed the
> assertion because it totally broke the Java front end.
That means you traded a visible compile time error for a possible silent
run-time error. That sounds like a poor trade
On Apr 27, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Martin Koegler wrote:
@@ -2070,6 +2078,7 @@
result = build3 (CALL_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (fntype),
function, coerced_params, NULL_TREE);
+ EXPR_MEM_AREA (result) = DEFAULT_MEM_AREA;
TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS (result) = 1;
In the future, please use -p to diff.
> However, I can always tell when a GCC build has hit the libjava build
> -- that's when the *whole system* suddenly slows to a crawl. Maybe
> it comes from doing some processing on 5000 foo.o files all at
> once... :-(
But that is not GCC fault that binutils cannot handle that load.
-- Pinski
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> [*] Does anyone have an idea of how large GCC really is?
Using sloccount, 4.0.0 release looks like:
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 1076327 (43.81%)
ada: 541135 (22.03%)
java:276544 (11.26%)
cpp:
> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 22:06, Paul Koning wrote:
>> Isn't a full bootstrap (all languages) part of the required test
>> procedure for changes? That's what the website says right now.
Steven> Isn't there a special text
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 12:53, Mike Stump wrote:
> Yes, this is ok. One final nit, if you'd like to fix it as well, is
> that obj-c++ should be added as a non-default language:
Good catch. I fixed that in my patch.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:36:08PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> [*] Does anyone have an idea of how large GCC really is?
>
~1.8 MLOC.
Courtesy of David Wheeler's SLOCCount (testsuites excluded):
SLOCDirectory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted)
1179994 gcc ansic=745370,ada=395409,
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 19:15, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> >
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 22:06, Paul Koning wrote:
> > "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Steven> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
> >> If no one builds natively on older platforms, the recognition that
> >> the new features maybe a problem for
> The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
> to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
> successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
>
Sure, and get flamed and trounced by Uli on glibc when you talk
about problems
> "Steven" == Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven> On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
>> If no one builds natively on older platforms, the recognition that
>> the new features maybe a problem for older platforms will never be
>> made.
Steven> Maybe the o
I have redone the implementation of the eeprom attribute in my prototype.
It is now a cleaner solution, but requires larger changes in the core,
but the changes in the core should not affect any backend/frontend, if
it does not uses them (except a missing case in tree_copy_mem_area, which
will caus
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
> > The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
>
> And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
> may not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared about them, it would have been noticed ea
On Apr 26, 2005, at 8:40 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
Thanks for the info. I have posted a proposed patch on the gcc-
patches mailing list here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-04/msg02720.html
Yes, this is ok. One final nit, if you'd like to fix it as well, is
that obj-c++ should be a
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> Matt Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I have a 50MHz 68060 with 96MB of memory (MVME177) approaching 100 hours
>> (48 hours just to exit stage3 and start on the libraries) doing a bootstrap
>> knowing that it's going to die when doing the ranlib of
GCC 4.0.0 has been successfully built on Fedora Core 3
Config.guess output:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
gcc -v output:
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.0/configure --prefix=/usr/local
--mandir=/usr/local/share/man --infodir=/usr/local/share/info
--enable-languages
Matt Thomas wrote:
Alas, the --disable-checking and STAGE1_CFLAGS="-O2 -g" (which I was
already doing) only decreased the bootstrap time by 10%. By far, the
longest bit of the bootstrap is building libjava.
Building libjava takes forever on any platform, relative to the rest of
the compiler build
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:29:54PM +, Sriharsha wrote:
> I am not interested in any legal opinion nor are we planning any legal
> recourse:
>
> All I am asking are questions like:
> Will a free-standing implementation of newlib not include functions like
> 'printf'?
See http://www-ccs.ucsd.
Hi,
Steven Bosscher wrote:
this is just a tiny note, that gcc-4.0 does produce miscompiled binaries
on sparc(32)-linux with -mcpu=ultrasparc. Some binaries work, however
many such as bash, curl or gzip segfault.
I know this is not a reduced testcase, just a note. I try to invest some
time over t
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 08:47 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> > When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
>
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts
>>
>> const char *a;
>>
>>...
>>
>> *(char *)&a[x] = 0;
>>
>>to
>>
>> a[x] = 0;
>>
>>confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa:
>>
>>/net/alwazn/home
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 09:35 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many *& expressions
> > during TER.
>
> We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the & when
> it's not a const
I used GCC-4.0.0 to build the Dirac project. I used the --enable-mmx
flag to enable MMX optimisations. Other versions of gcc (3.3.4 and
3.4.3) give a speedup of approximately 30% when the mmx optimisations
are enabled. However with gcc-4.0.0, the performance of the Dirac
encoder with MMX opts enabl
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:50:52PM +0530, Sriharsha Vedurmudi wrote:
> Hello all, esp. Dave and Mike,
>
>sorry to bother you again. To begin with, I apologise for my
> incomplete or ambiguous question. I would like to represent my problem
> with better clarity.
>
> Our company (a hardware c
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:36:41AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> Anyway, I'm going to look into why we're seeing so many *& expressions
> during TER.
We have an open PR for this. We don't propagate the & when
it's not a constant. Like in &x->y.
r~
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Read Zack's sentence
| >
| > These are not constants.
| >
| > from
| >
| >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01436.html
| >
| > as
| >
| > These (i.e. AAA, etc.) are not constant expressions.
| >
| > Are you happy now?
|
| T
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:45:01AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
> > If you survived without them previously you can do so now.
> > (i.e. don't build libjava if your machine isn't capable of it)
>
> Yes, you can skip building libjava. But can you skip building GCC?
> Will GCC 3.x be supported forever
For the record, I cannot reproduce this on linux with -O2 or -O0. If you
continue to have problems, I strongly suggest reporting this in bugzilla.
-benjamin
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:29, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:19, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > Richard Earnshaw writes:
> >
> > Richard> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > >> The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
> > >> commercial comp
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 17:19, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw writes:
>
> Richard> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >> The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
> >> commercial compilers with similar functionality. And the GCC developers
> >> av
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:19 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts
>
> const char *a;
>
> ...
>
> *(char *)&a[x] = 0;
>
> to
>
> a[x] = 0;
>
> confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa:
>
> /net/alwazn/home/rguenth/src/gcc/cvs/gcc-4
> Richard Earnshaw writes:
Richard> On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
>> commercial compilers with similar functionality. And the GCC developers
>> ave plans to address inefficiencies -- GCC 4.0 often is faster th
On 2005-04-27 18:38:52 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> It has been answered, but I do not believe you made the effort to
> understand the answer. Now, let me asnwer it one more time.
The vocabulary is important, and I find the gcc diagnostic (cited
by Bruce) quite confusing. Then it is not surpr
Original Message
>From: David Edelsohn
>Sent: 27 April 2005 16:32
>> Matt Thomas writes:
>
> Matt> That's all positive but if GCC also becomes too expensive to build
> then Matt> all those extra features become worthless. What is the
> slowest system Matt> that GCC has been recently
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 16:31, David Edelsohn wrote:
> The GCC build times are not unreasonable compared to other,
> commercial compilers with similar functionality. And the GCC developers
> ave plans to address inefficiencies -- GCC 4.0 often is faster than GCC
> 3.4.
If you are going to ma
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
>
>
>>David Edelsohn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> GCC now supports C++, Fortran 90 and Java. Those languages have
>>>extensive, complicated runtimes. The GCC Java environment is becoming
>>>much more complete and stan
> Matt Thomas writes:
Matt> That's all positive but if GCC also becomes too expensive to build then
Matt> all those extra features become worthless. What is the slowest system
Matt> that GCC has been recently bootstrapped on?
GCC recently was bootstrapped on a VAX.
The GCC b
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > GCC now supports C++, Fortran 90 and Java. Those languages have
> > extensive, complicated runtimes. The GCC Java environment is becoming
> > much more complete and standards compliant, which means ad
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 17:30:25 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | >
| > | > [...]
| > | >
|
On 2005-04-27 15:44:15 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
> >From: Vincent Lefevre
> >Sent: 27 April 2005 14:59
>
> > On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> > But if they are never modifi
Hi,
I'm attempting to build gcc 4.0.0 on Solaris. I have been unable to
build gcc or at least some of its components since the release of gcc 3.4.
Here are a few details on my system:
- Solaris 8 7/01
- Sun's as/ld
as: Sun WorkShop 6 99/08/18
ld: Software Generation Utilities - Solaris Li
David Edelsohn wrote:
>>Matt Thomas writes:
>
>
> Matt> Regardless, GCC4.1 is a computational pig.
>
> If you are referring to the compiler itself, this has no basis in
> reality. If you are referring to the entire compiler collection,
> including runtimes, you are not using a fair co
Original Message
>From: Vincent Lefevre
>Sent: 27 April 2005 15:47
> Example: the expression 1+1 is not a constant,
OK then, let's see you assign a different value to it!
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today
On 2005-04-27 17:30:25 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > [...]
> | >
> | > | > > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to
Original Message
>From: Vincent Lefevre
>Sent: 27 April 2005 14:59
> On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
> But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
> > The fact that the
> Matt Thomas writes:
Matt> Regardless, GCC4.1 is a computational pig.
If you are referring to the compiler itself, this has no basis in
reality. If you are referring to the entire compiler collection,
including runtimes, you are not using a fair comparison or are making
extreme stat
Hi, Andrew!
> Not really, I would now stop for a minute and check your memory
> and your hardware since this is not reproducible.
Hmm, okay. It's an embedded system without any case and
proper shielding - so some hicups might be possible.
I will see, I am doing several compile tests like that
to ve
fold_indirect_ref, called from the gimplifier happily converts
const char *a;
...
*(char *)&a[x] = 0;
to
a[x] = 0;
confusing alias1 and ICEing in verify_ssa:
/net/alwazn/home/rguenth/src/gcc/cvs/gcc-4.1/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20031215-1.c:11:
error: Statement makes a memory
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 15:44:12 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | On 2005-04-27 12:34:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
| > | > You said "if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants,
| > | > right?"
On Apr 27, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Clemens Koller wrote:
...and it's not reproducable yet.
On a second try the compile was fine and test-idouble just works...
~/newbuild/glibc-2.3.5-build/math$ ./test-idouble
testing double (inline functions)
Test suite completed:
2562 test cases plus 2337 tests for e
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | > > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
| > | > >
| > | > > The fact that they are not co
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 15:41:06 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | It is said "constant expressions", not "integer constant expressions".
| >
| > And an integer constant expression is not a constant expression
...and it's not reproducable yet.
On a second try the compile was fine and test-idouble just works...
~/newbuild/glibc-2.3.5-build/math$ ./test-idouble
testing double (inline functions)
Test suite completed:
2562 test cases plus 2337 tests for exception flags executed.
All tests passed successf
On 2005-04-27 15:26:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 2005-04-27 03:37:15 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> | > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > > However it is correct to store any integer to an unsigned variable,
> | > > even if
On 2005-04-27 15:44:12 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 2005-04-27 12:34:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> | > You said "if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants,
> | > right?" To which the correct answer is "no, they don't".
> |
>
On 2005-04-27 15:30:39 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | > > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
> | > >
> | > > The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions,
> | > > is it due to the f
On 2005-04-27 15:41:06 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | It is said "constant expressions", not "integer constant expressions".
>
> And an integer constant expression is not a constant expression in
> your copy of the C standard?
What you are saying
Hi Andrew!
I am reading it right now...
I just have to figure out, what you really need or not.
Greets,
Clemens Koller
___
R&D Imaging Devices
Anagramm GmbH
Rupert-Mayer-Str. 45/1
81379 Muenchen
Germany
http://www.anagramm.de
Phone: +49-89-741518-50
Fax: +49-89-741518-19
On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Clemens Koller wrote:
I know that there are precision issues with the test-float and
test-ifloat tests
with the FPU emulation code, but this crash is new to me.
I haven't seen this problem with gcc-3.4.3 and glibc-2.3.4.
Well... is this already a known problem, a mista
Hi
Well, I 've just tried to compile the new glibc-2.3.5 with the latest
gcc-3.4-20050422 and ran into the following internal compiler error during
the glibc math checks:
make[2]: Entering directory `/share/home/clemens/newbuild/glibc-2.3.5/math'
gcc test-idouble.c -c -std=gnu99 -O2 -Wall -Winline
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 04:22, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 23:40 -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > Wasn't TER a temporary kludge that should be going away?
> When we have a tree combiner I would expect TER to disappear.
Or if tree expansion were rewritten. One of the many things still
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 12:34:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
| > You said "if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants,
| > right?" To which the correct answer is "no, they don't".
|
| Why not?
I think the answer to that question was in the part you
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 2005-04-27 12:29:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
| > Vincent Lefevre writes:
| > > The only two constraints in 6.6 are:
| > >
| > >[#3] Constant expressions shall not contain assignment,
| > >increment, decrement, function-
Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > > But if they are never modified, they evaluate to constants, right?
| > >
| > > The fact that they are not considered as constant expressions,
| > > is it due to the fact that the environment is allowed to modify
| > > them?
| >
| > It
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
