enable __mt_alloc?

Hi, How do I enable the use of the __mt_alloc-allocator instead of the default one? I've searched google without any success more than internal documentation on mt_alloc. Using: gcc version 3.4.3 20041212 (Red Hat 3.4.3-9.EL4) regards, Robin

Re: enable __mt_alloc?

Ola Rönnerup wrote: Hi, How do I enable the use of the __mt_alloc-allocator instead of the default one? this patch applies to gcc-4 but i think it will give you an idea where to look. http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/devel/gcc/gcc4-libstdc%2B%2B-mt-alloc.patch

Wiki on home page

I note that you have a wiki from 27 January 2005. It is made known by a line in the News/Announcements, which will disappear at some time, and anyway is not always the first reading for people. I suggest that, when the state of the wiki will be mature enough from your perspective, to insert the

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

On 5/13/05, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anybody with the same problem? maybe, maybe not, I'm in an endless loop at stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/usr/local/sparc-linux/bin/ -c -g -O2 -gnatpg -gnata -I- -I. -Iada -I/usr/local/src/trunk/gcc-binutils/gcc/ada /usr/local/src/trunk/gcc

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

Andreas, I've had the same problem since updating on Wednesday evening :-( It did bootstrap overnight Tuesday. Cheers Graham

Mainline broken

Hi Joern, You broke mainline. gcc -c -O0 -g -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -fno-common -DHAVE_CONFIG_H-I. -I. -I../../mainline/gcc -I../../mainline/gcc/. -I../../mainline/gcc/../include -I../../mainline/gcc/../libcpp/include ../../mainline/

Re: Mainline broken

Steven Bosscher wrote: Seems like your forgot the basic-block.h bits in this commit: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-05/msg00621.html Gr. Steven Sorry. Checked in now.

Re: check_ext_dependent_givs

Hi, all, I do not want to modify the old loop optimizer defined in loop.c. I am preparing to port some improvements done on gcc-3.5 to gcc-4.0, and the GIV optimizations is one of my concerns. On IA-64, the GIV optimizations can hardly improve the performance. The reason is that check_ext_de

a question about peephole2

first i want to generate a three-operator multiply-add instruction similar to four-operator multiply-add instruction in mips4 instruction sets. i modify the gcc/config/mips/mips.md file as follow: (define_peephole2 [ (set (match_operand:SF 0 "register_operand" "=f") (mult:SF (match_operan

RE: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:33 PM > To: Adam Nemet > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; Dams, Dennis (Dennis); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful > > Adam Nemet <[EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

Diego, it looks like it's this change: +2005-05-10 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + + * tree-optimize.c (init_tree_optimization_passes): Re-organize + optimization passes to do an initial batch of scalar cleanups. + which is rather unfortunate since this means we have some kind

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 5/13/05, Andreas Jaeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Anybody with the same problem? > > maybe, maybe not, I'm in an endless loop at Yes, that's the same problem, if I do a parallel build, it hanges there also... > > stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/u

Re: mainline boostrap comparison failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-49)

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:20:22PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 05:33:05PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > I got the same comparsion failure. > > > Have you tried with Zdenek's patch to LSM that I approved earlier today? > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01150.h

Re: Stage2 Miscompilaton of Ada?

On May 13, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: Diego, it looks like it's this change: +2005-05-10 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> + + * tree-optimize.c (init_tree_optimization_passes): Re-organize + optimization passes to do an initial batch of scalar cleanups. + which is rathe

Re: -fdump-translation-unit considered harmful

"Dams, Dennis (Dennis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | | > -Original Message- | > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 12:33 PM | > To: Adam Nemet | > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; Dams, Dennis (Dennis); [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > Subject: Re: -fdum

Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

sh-elf tree-ssa failure

execute/20031215-1.c passes on i686 and ppc, but fails on sh-elf - both SH1 big endian and SH4 little endian, eight times each. It still shows the same failure with mainline from 17:00 UTC today. Executing on host: /mnt/scratch/nightly/2005-05-11/sh-elf/gcc/xgcc -B/mnt/scratch/nightly/2005-05-11

Re: sh-elf tree-ssa failure

On May 13, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote: execute/20031215-1.c passes on i686 and ppc, but fails on sh-elf - both SH1 big endian and SH4 little endian, eight times each. It still shows the same failure with mainline from 17:00 UTC today. Huh, it fails on all targets. -- Pinski

Re: sh-elf tree-ssa failure

Andrew Pinski wrote: Huh, it fails on all targets. -- Pinski Sorry, my bad. It passes at -O0 and -O1 on all targets, and fails at -Os etc on all of them, too. I incorrectly asumed that eight errors per multilib must mean it fails across the board.

Re: a question about peephole2

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 11:37:16PM +0800, zouq wrote: > original program is: > mul.d $f1, $f1, $f0 > add.d $f2, $f2, $f1 > div.d $f3, $f0, $f1; > > after i compile used my changed gcc, it becomes: > madd.d $f2, $f1, $0 > div.d $f3, $f0, $f1 > > as you can see, the value of $f1 is wrong!! Check

rtl printing

Do we currently have an RTL infix printing mechanism hidden away somewhere? I seem to vaguely recall new-ra might have had something once upon a time... I also suspect others have fooled with it over the years. Is there code laying around I can snarf and work with? Andrew

Re: rtl printing

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 02:31:12PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Is there code laying around I can snarf and work with? See sched-vis.c. r~

Re: Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

Paul Albrecht wrote: Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc? -Wl,-Map=mapfile.map,--cref Docs for -Wl option: Docs for linker options (-Map, --cref):

Re: Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

Eric writes: > > -Wl,-Map=mapfile.map,--cref > I'm not looking for a cross-reference from a symbol to its memory location in linked file, rather a cross-reference from a symbol definition in a program source file to its line number references in all the program source files.

Re: rtl printing

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:31 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > Do we currently have an RTL infix printing mechanism hidden away > somewhere? I seem to vaguely recall new-ra might have had something > once upon a time... I also suspect others have fooled with it over the > years. Yes, new-ra has a

Re: Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 14:49 -0500, Paul Albrecht wrote: > Eric writes: > > > > > -Wl,-Map=mapfile.map,--cref > > > > I'm not looking for a cross-reference from a symbol to its memory location > in linked file, rather a cross-reference from a symbol definition in a > program source file to its lin

unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO. It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the static library case (but not for the shared library case). In my link, I was using the libgcc.a (for that particular platform I don

Re: unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

On May 13, 2005, at 5:33 PM, Paul Koning wrote: I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO. It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the static library case (but not for the shared library case). In my link, I was using th

Re: unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden symbol > _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO. > > It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibility=hidden for the > static library case (but not for the shared library case). >

Re: unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Daniel> On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: >> I ran into link errors complaining about references to hidden >> symbol _Unwind_GetIP from a DSO. >> >> It turns out unwind-dw2.c is compiled with -fvisibil

Re: unexpected hidden symbol in gcc 4.0.0

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 05:33:21PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > The documentation for -fvisibility=hidden suggets that this switch is > useful for shared libraries, to make things smaller and faster. It > doesn't seem to be appropriate for object libraries. It's done *exactly* so that we catch th

Re: Is there a way to generate a cross reference listing for a c/c++ program using gcc?

If you want that kind of cross referencing, then you shouild look at Doxygen (http://www.stack.nl/~dimitri/doxygen/). It will produce excellent cross references for HTML, Latex, RTF, and XML. There are pre-built binaries for Linux distributions, Solaris, and Windows, and Doxygen is usually in most

GCC 3.4.4 RC2

GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512 There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people experienced with RC1. Please download, build, and test. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

gcc-3.4-20050513 is now available

Snapshot gcc-3.4-20050513 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/3.4-20050513/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 3.4 CVS branch with the following options: -rgcc-ss-3_4-20050513 You'll

Re: a question about peephole2

en,i still have a problem, the MAX_INSNS_PER_PEEP2 is 3, when the program case is : mul.d $f1, $f1, $f0 add.d $f2, $f2, $f1 sub.d $f3, $f3, $f2 sdc1 $f3, 0(v0) addiu v0, v0, 1 add.d $f3, $f4, $f2 sdc1 > On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 11:37:16PM +0800, zouq wrote: >> original program is: >> mul.d $f1, $f1

Need help creating a small test case for g++ 4.0.0 bug

Hi all, I originally posted these messages to gcc-help, but had no reply, so I am re-posting links to them here. I think I have found a bug in g++ 4.0.0, but need help in reporting it. Maintainers like their bug reports to include short test cases, but I don't know how to generate a short test

Re: GCC 3.4.4 RC2

On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.4-20050512 > > There are just a few changes from RC1 to fix critical problems people > experienced with RC1. > > Please download, build, and test.

Re: Need help creating a small test case for g++ 4.0.0 bug

On May 13, 2005, at 10:16 PM, Paul C. Leopardi wrote: +//* workaround for ICC, G++ 3.3+, G++ 4.0+ Why do you need this work around? Why has this not been filed or really fixed in their sources? -- Pinski

Re: Need help creating a small test case for g++ 4.0.0 bug

Andrew, Thanks for reminding me about this. I'll need to take a good look at this. The effect of the workaround is to change any instance of _GLUCAT_PRIVATE to public. This does not affect the validity or otherwise of the g++ bug I'm currently trying to report. I wrote GluCat at a time when ea

GCC 2.95.3 on Red Hat Entreprise Linux ES 3.0

Hello, I would like know if GCC compiler 2.95.3 could be installed on Red Hat Entreprise Linux ES 3.0 and recompile C/C++ programs that were written/compiled earlier using 2.95.3 GCC compiler on Sun Solaris V 2.6 machine. Also would like to know the pros and cons in using GCC 2.95.3 in preferenc