Re: Regressions

fortran.dg/pr19657.f and gfortran.dg/select_2.f90 at -O3, > gfortran.dg/vect/vect-2.f90 at -O. And gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90, but > that one is not new. > > They were not present in 20050615, and appeared in 20050616. It is due > to an ICE, at -O3: > > O3.f: In function ?MA

Re: Regressions

gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90, but that one is not new. They were not present in 20050615, and appeared in 20050616. It is due to an ICE, at -O3: O3.f: In function ‘MAIN__’: O3.f:11: internal compiler error: in tree_verify_flow_info, at tree-cfg.c:3716 This is now known as PR 22100. FX

Bootstrap Failure (i686-pc-linux-gnu, --with-arch=pentium4)

Hi, For two consecutive days, I have been unable to build GCC mainline on i686-pc-linux-gnu: - 8< - stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/home/ranmath/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W -Wal

Major regression in 4.1.

Does this look familiar to anyone? It certainly was happening a few days ago. Shouldn't a bootstrap and regression of all frontend be required before someone checks in a patch to the back-end? Setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH to .:/usr/home/sgk/gcc/obj41/amd64-unknown-freebsd6.0/./libgfortran/.libs:/usr

basic VRP min/max range overflow question

Upon a potential integer overflow of either it's min or max range, shouldn't the result be set to [min:type-min-value, max:type-max-value], without the necessity of any further designations? As this would seem to most accurately and simply represent the effective bounds of an underflowed integer v

gcc-4.0-20050616 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050616 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050616/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050616 You'll

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

It seems that the libtool command line may be wrong. Here's a simple test. [descartes:~/programs] lucier% cat conftest.c int main2() { return 0;} [descartes:~/programs] lucier% gcc -m64 -mcpu=970 -o conftest -dynamiclib conftest.c -v -save-temps Using built-in specs. Target: powerpc-apple-d

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

> And that one should be fixed by the patch I posted, so Solaris > should be hopefully fine. Yup, OK everywhere. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre wrote: What about having the choice? That's fine, provided there are really well defined semantic rules for what the options do, these options need designing by people who are experts in floating-point semantics. Anyway, if the only reason is the performance, then the bug sho

Re: Fixing Bugs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Wakely) wrote on 16.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:03AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > > > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > > > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > >

Re: x86-linux bootstrap broken on mainline?

> stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ > -B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install/install-20050616T132922/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ > -c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long > -Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -Werr

Re: x86-linux bootstrap broken on mainline?

> stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ > -B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install/install-20050616T132922/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ > -c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings > -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long > -Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -Werr

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

"Menezes, Evandro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named | > -O3_unsafe. | | How about the popular -fast? But, some transformations can both be valid and generate "faster" code. One of the confusions is that people tend to equate "fast" with

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:04 AM, Bradley Lucier wrote: On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:30 AM, Mike Stump wrote: Please try something like: ... and let me know if it works. Thank you, I will try it today. Actually, by try, I meant try your application. :-) Last night I unconditionally allowed multilib

RE: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

> If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named > -O3_unsafe. How about the popular -fast? -- ___ Evandro MenezesAMD Austin, TX

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Although it does do some of this, -ffloat-store also has some rather nasty > side-effects, because of what it is actually documented to do: > > > @item -ffloat-store > > @opindex ffloat-store > > Do not store floating point variables in registers, an

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 13:37:23 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > This is not a superficial comment, my whole point with that comment > is that GCC does not __currently__ implement any other rounding mode > than the default one which is not what you want but hey it is what GCC > currently does. Based on this c

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 12:34:27 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > Well abandoning x87 was a joke, I was trying to get the point across > that this is long standing "problem" with x87. If you go and search > you will see this comes up every year since at least 1998 before > EGCS was officially GCC. In the bug

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 12:12:26 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Everyone would agree that per se unnecessary non-determinism is a > bad thing. Yes, but not all people would agree on the meaning of "necessary" (for performance? for security?). > However, most people would also agree that poor performance > is

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

Volker Reichelt wrote: Hi Mark, you wrote Those who have been watching carefully will note that there is no sign of an actual 4.0.1 release. since the branch has been frozen for quite sime time now, a lot of patches for the 4.0 branch have piled up. Given the facts that a) we'll have ano

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > > So, what I think you want to do is to add another flag under > > -ffast-math, perhaps called -fwiden-math, which specifically allows > > the compiler to compute values in a wider mode (that would be

x86-linux bootstrap broken on mainline?

stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/home/guerby/work/gcc/install/install-20050616T132922/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -c -O2 -g -fomit-frame-pointer -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wold-style-definition -Werror -fno-co

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: > > > First, I would like to clarify I do not consider it rude. > > > > But I do not consider it a good thing that, after this superficial > > comment > > of yours, you did not even care to reply to my further arguments and > > question

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:26 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote: First, I would like to clarify I do not consider it rude. But I do not consider it a good thing that, after this superficial comment of yours, you did not even care to reply to my further arguments and question. This is precisely the kind

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > >> Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >>> Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". >> >> >> Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people >> have provided explicitly links t

Re: 4.0.0->4.0.1 regression: Can't use 64-bit shared libs on powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

On Jun 16, 2005, at 1:30 AM, Mike Stump wrote: Please try something like: ... and let me know if it works. Thank you, I will try it today. Last night I unconditionally allowed multilibs and configured with Compiler version: 4.1.0 20050615 (experimental) Platform: powerpc-apple-darwin8.1.0

Re: build fails for 1st pass gcc 3.4.4 target=m68k-elf host=build=x86_64

On Jun 16, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Thomas Brinker wrote: Hello! I try to build a cross gcc3.4.4 but it fails: Everything is vanilla, without patches. This looks like PR 22001: . Thanks, Andrew Pinski

build fails for 1st pass gcc 3.4.4 target=m68k-elf host=build=x86_64

Hello! I try to build a cross gcc3.4.4 but it fails: Everything is vanilla, without patches. __Configure_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/mnt/data/emlix/tbrinker/64bit-tc/gcc-3.4.4_build$ ../gcc-3.4.4/configure --enable-languages=c --disable-libmudflap --disable-nls --target=m68k-e

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:11 AM, Mark Hahn wrote: I'm answering that since this is plainly wrong. Bug 21809 was closed by yourself on 2005-05-29. This is not 1999! You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in 1999? Again, this is a place where you disagree that this

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their comments. Examples have been given. Quoting ESR these days is perhaps not really in vogue, but I've always found this document to be extremely helpful:

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre wrote: BTW, unpredictability, such as in bug 323, is not a bug (according to the C standard). This may be seen as a bad behavior and changing this behavior would be a great improvement, but I don't complain about it here when saying "bug". Everyone would agree that per se unnec

Re: The tree API

Rafael Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 6/16/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello~ every one :) > > > > I'm a new guy in gcc mailing list > > I've been studying gcc for 2 months. > > I read "GNU compiler collection internals" (for GCC 3.5.0?),

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 08:12:24 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > I should also note that *you* seem to equate "disagreement with your > viewpoint" with "wrong", "obstinate", or "ignorant", which is not the > case. Just because someone disagrees with your views on floating point > does not make them wrong, stu

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 08:20:20 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed > in 1999? Yes: Bug 323 as originally reported is really invalid. The C standard doesn't guarantee that y and y2 should exactly be the same value. However bug 21809 (like *some

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

--- Andrew Pinski wrote: > Four out of how many? This can not be measured (ie unpredictable), unless you suggesting you are 100% deterministic on every new bug presented to you. ___ How much free photo storage do you g

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:10:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > The diff is attached. Except that -_ZNSt13basic_istreamIwSt11char_traitsIwEE6ignoreEil@@GLIBCXX_3.4 FUNC GLOBAL DEFAULT the diff just shows the expected 24 changes of @@GLIBCXX_3.4 symbols to @GLIBCXX_3.4 + @@GLIBCXX_3.4.5 and 2 add

problemns confgire/build gcc/libstdc++ for ColdFire v4e

I'm tyring to cross-build a linux toolchain for a ColdFire v4e, where I have to pass -mcfv4e to the compiler to select the ColdFire v4e, as well as the linker(to make sure it picks the right library), and I have this working for when building gcc-3.4.3 with --languages=c, but when I try to build

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Sometimes, some people come to GCC developers with the assumptions > that they must be obscure ignorant and miles-of-code-writers-without- > thinking and as such are very willing to endlessly lecture them about > how ignorant they are and how they should do their jobs. I

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: Daniel Berlin wrote: Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. Four out of how many? The

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > If you consider that "unfriendly", then you really need to get out of > the development business, because you need a thicker skin. Oh, my skin's thick enough. And my skull, too. :) Perhaps there is misinterpretation all around. ..Scott

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > I think what gets peoples' blood pressure up is | > endless discussion about how they ought to do their | > business. | | Try publishing a compiler review, and listen to the kibitzers. :) | | I've been writing for publication all my adult life; j

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Darn me all the heck. I said I wasn't going to say anything more... bad Scott, bad Scott! > again and again and again and again (which i'm sure you'll say is us > "not listening to the user community", which is not the case). I hate to disappoint you, but those words won't grace this message. I u

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

> Can you please post output from > readelf -Ws libstdc++.so.6 \ > > | sed -n '/\.symtab/,$d;/ UND /d;/\(GLOBAL\|WEAK\)/p' \ > | awk '{ if ($4 == "OBJECT") { printf "%s %s %s %s %s\n", $8, $4, $5, $6, > | $3 } else { printf "%s %s %s %s\n", $8, $4, $5, $6 }}' \ LC_ALL=C sort > | -u > > befo

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > So, what I think you want to do is to add another flag under > -ffast-math, perhaps called -fwiden-math, which specifically allows > the compiler to compute values in a wider mode (that would be 80-bit > x87 FP) even when ISO C doesn't allow it. You

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:58 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". > > Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people > have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. Again, i'm look

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:03AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: >> > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this >> > the "Bicycle shed effect." >> > >> >

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:30 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > > > > > If I'

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:51 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Dan Kegel wrote: > > And then there's the GCC summit, if you're really serious. > > I'd certainly love to attend, but can't afford it with the medical bills > we've accumulated. Hospitalizing both the primary bread-winners has a > drama

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, *please* provide examples other than "The bugmasters are mean". Don't invent quotes. I never said anyone was "mean." And other people have provided explicitly links to germane bugs. > You are more than free to post designs on gcc@ if you want. However, you > seem to

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: | | > 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their | > comments. Examples have been given. | | But you don't see all the thank you emails I get too because they are | almost alwa

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:03AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > > > >

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 10:13 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Maybe you should start naming names, so we can take stock of the > > problem. > > Because of Acovea and my reviews of GCC (there are two more coming, one > in a print magazine), a lot of people write me privatel

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Dan Kegel wrote: > And then there's the GCC summit, if you're really serious. I'd certainly love to attend, but can't afford it with the medical bills we've accumulated. Hospitalizing both the primary bread-winners has a dramatic affect on finances. ;) > I think what gets peoples' blood pressure

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 16:39, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm > > | not talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place > > | for peopl

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm not > | talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place for > | people to ask a few questions, one on one, to get over certain > | co

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd wrote: I have ample evidence that many people feel that the GCC developer community is not very welcoming. I haven't found this to be the case. Perhaps that's because I try to control my urge to post frequently (oops, guess I'm screwing up here!), and because I try hard to co

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Mark Hahn wrote: > LKML is no different, except that it is probably somewhat more prominent, > and has developed some immunity/bouncers (kernel janitors, etc). Linux as has a vast body of educational material, including "kernel newbies". ..Scott

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > If I'm building a bicycle shed, I may want to talk with others who have done so

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | 2) A mentoring system could help bring along new GCC developers. I'm not | talking about hand-holding, I'm suggesting that having some place for | people to ask a few questions, one on one, to get over certain | conceptual humps. Such a place does e

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Jun 16, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: 1) Bugmasters could be less perfunctory and pejorative in their comments. Examples have been given. But you don't see all the thank you emails I get too because they are almost always in a private email. And most of the time I don't clos

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Maybe you should start naming names, so we can take stock of the > problem. Because of Acovea and my reviews of GCC (there are two more coming, one in a print magazine), a lot of people write me privately. This happens with commercial compilers as well... and combining those

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

> > I'm answering that since this is plainly wrong. Bug 21809 was > > closed by yourself on 2005-05-29. This is not 1999! > > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in > 1999? > > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this should be considered > a "bug", but

Re: The tree API

On 6/16/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hello~ every one :) > > I'm a new guy in gcc mailing list > I've been studying gcc for 2 months. > I read "GNU compiler collection internals" (for GCC 3.5.0?), > and I also trace the source code for target-mips. > My problem is

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:56:52AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > I would be especially grateful for people testing this on primary hosts > > that are not linux. In particular, AIX and Solaris. > > OK on Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6, but not OK on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10: Can you please post output from

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: | > Again, please point to specific examples. | | GCC developers don't want examples. Vincent -- Yoir remark is inappropriate. Obviously, Daniel is a GCC developer. I guess you did not mean to

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 13:35 +0100, Haren Visavadia wrote: > --- Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this > > should be considered > > a "bug", but refuse to believe that reasonable > > people can disagree on > > it. > > Well, Vincent has given detailed explainat

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 08:20 am, Daniel Berlin wrote: > You deny that Bug 21809 is the same bug as Bug 323, which was closed in > 1999? No, clearly, its some form of time travel by aliens wanting to subvert GCC to their own evil purposes. Vincent is their leader. I, for one, welcome our new Le

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

--- Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, this is a place where you disagree that this > should be considered > a "bug", but refuse to believe that reasonable > people can disagree on > it. Well, Vincent has given detailed explaination on his views. What do you mean by "reasonable" here?

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Robert Dewar wrote: I would avoid the words safe and unsafe, because a) they are technical terms in the realm of high integrity programming b) they are unnecessarily emotive (who wants unsafe code?) I agree, but term "unsafe" is less important then fact that developer will have only one gcc

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thursday 16 June 2005 14:03, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, please point to specific examples. > > GCC developers don't want examples. Perhaps not your examples, because your way of discussing so far is not exactly a very constructive one.

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 14:08 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-15 18:18:23 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > But if you look how old it is, it is before really any bugmaster > > started. Also a main developer, RTH, closed it and he has been > > working on GCC since before 1999. > > I'm answe

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 14:03 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Again, please point to specific examples. > > GCC developers don't want examples. > I should also note that *you* seem to equate "disagreement with your viewpoint" with "wrong", "ob

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-15 18:18:23 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > But if you look how old it is, it is before really any bugmaster > started. Also a main developer, RTH, closed it and he has been > working on GCC since before 1999. I'm answering that since this is plainly wrong. Bug 21809 was closed by yoursel

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Thu, 16 Jun 2005, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: Again, please point to specific examples. GCC developers don't want examples. I'm sorry to interrupt your trolling, but you'll note 1. I'm a GCC developer 2. I asked for specific examples So yo

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On 2005-06-16 07:43:17 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Again, please point to specific examples. GCC developers don't want examples. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: Work: CR INRIA - compu

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

Mirza wrote: re: -ffp-damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named -O3_unsafe. It would be (probably) default for 99% of projects out there to use this option alone (which is OK), so why not make their life easier. Just a thought. mirza I w

Re: Reporting bugs: there is nothing to gain in frustrating reporters

On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 12:13 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: > > On 6/15/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>But an objection from one of the bugmasters *is* enough to keep people > >>from presenting a patch. > > > > How do you come to this conclusion? Fr

The tree API

Hello~ every one :) I'm a new guy in gcc mailing list I've been studying gcc for 2 months. I read "GNU compiler collection internals" (for GCC 3.5.0?), and I also trace the source code for target-mips. My problem is there are so much symbol/function/API in gcc. Some are documentated in the boo

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-13)

> I would be especially grateful for people testing this on primary hosts > that are not linux. In particular, AIX and Solaris. OK on Solaris 2.5.1 and 2.6, but not OK on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10: FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/ignore/wchar_t/1.cc (test for excess errors) WARNING: 27_io/basic_istream/ig

Re: Porposal: Floating-Point Options

re: -ffp-damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead If this option makes it into GCC, maybe it could be named -O3_unsafe. It would be (probably) default for 99% of projects out there to use this option alone (which is OK), so why not make their life easier. Just a thought. mirza

Re: Expanding an ADDSI3 into 2 x ADDHI3 does not work

> If I use: > (define_expand "addsi" > [(set (match_operand:SI 0 "general_operand" "=g") >(plus:SI (match_operand:SI 1 "general_operand" "g") > (match_operand:SI 2 "general_operand" "g")))] > "" > "{ > emit_insn (gen_addhi3 (custom_subword(operands[0], 0, SImode), >