On Sunday, July 3, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Sung-Gu wrote:
How can I get byteswap.c, endian.c and some related files for an aleady
installed gcc library? The aleady installed gcc is gcc-3.4.2 for sol8
sparc on
www.sunfreeware.com. But there isn't include/bits/varisouc_files.h. :(
Wrong list.
I asked Google. I thinks he doesn't know about that. :(
I thought I might find a specfic directory in gcc sources whether it supports
the files.
I don't want to compile the whole source files. :(
Still wrong list? Sorry then...
-Original Message-
From: Mike Stump [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi,all:
How can I trace the process of C++ template
Instantiation? I study Loki and some library is very
complex, so I want to see how gcc compiler instance
the template class.
alex
___
On Monday 04 July 2005 07:59, Balaji S wrote:
Hi everybody,
I have a problem with delayed branch scheduling. Problem in a DSP porting
which has VLIW instructions and delayed branches. While scheduling delayed
branches, GCC (3.4.3) schedules an instruction which is a part of a VLIW
On Monday 04 July 2005 12:41, Balaji S wrote:
_On 04-Jul-2005 15:31, Steven Bosscher san wrote_:
Add an attribute to those instructions that cannot be in delay slots,
and change this define_delay to disallow instructions with that attr?
Any instruction other than jump can be placed in the
Hi all,
I am wondering if MIPS-X has been supported.
Thanks.
IM
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 09:27:48PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Note that my complaint about the lack of endian support in that code
still stands ;-)
I seem to recall running into this before. It's not a lack of
endian support, it's one piece lying to another about the size
of the object. Which
I plan to up-port my ST20 port to the mainline. I thought I'd first give
a description of the port and ask for some opinion. Basically, I would
like to hear, would an implementation along these lines be acceptable in
principle, and otherwise, what are the main no-go points ?
I'll try to keep it
IM.Nobody [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am wondering if MIPS-X has been supported.
Not by FSF releases, no. I'm not aware of a private port either,
but perhaps others know better.
Richard
AIX is good:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00216.html
David
I have another Linux machine.
And I found the following messages:
$cd /usr/include
$ more endian.h
/* Copyright (C) 1992, 1996, 1997, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of the GNU C Library.
snip
/* This file defines `__BYTE_ORDER' for the particular machine. */
#include
Sung-Gu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have another Linux machine.
And I found the following messages:
$cd /usr/include
$ more endian.h
/* Copyright (C) 1992, 1996, 1997, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of the GNU C Library.
Yes. gcc is not the GNU C library.
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 12:31 -0400, Robert van Engelen wrote:
Hi,
I am interested in the recent work in gcc 4.0 with respect to scalar
evolutions. The students in my compiler laboratory studied the
algorithm implemented in gcc 4.0. We are considering extending this
work based on our
Darwin here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00221.html
ok so far.
Andreas
On Jun 30, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
On Thursday 30 June 2005 04:24, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Ada is now broken on the mainline by:
2005-06-28 Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Makefile.in: Set and use UNWIND_H. Install as unwind.h.
* c-decl.c (finish_decl): Call
PA is ok:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00223.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00218.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00186.html
The failure of pr21817-1.c on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 is a minor
testsuite issue that is now fixed on the
Hi Jakub,
I am having a trouble with libssp in one-tree builds. That is, if I
try to build binutils and gcc at the same time, libssp/configure
complains while compiling (and linking) the following program and the
build process stops.
/* confdefs.h. */
#define PACKAGE_NAME libssp
#define
Hello,
Just today, I noticed that I couldn't use bubblestrap on current gcc
trunk... It fails like this in gnattools:
../../gnatbind -C -I- -I../rts -I. -I/usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/ada
-o b_gnatm.c gnatmake.ali
error: g-dirope.adb must be compiled
error: (../rts/g-dirope.ali is obsolete and
_On 05-Jul-2005 00:14, Ian Lance Taylor san wrote_:
Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you have a few instructions bundled into a VLIW instruction, and
one of the instructions in the bundle is moved into the delay slot,
thus breaking your VLIW bundle. Right?
I think there are two
On Jul 5, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Kazu Hirata wrote:
Hi Jakub,
I am having a trouble with libssp in one-tree builds. That is, if I
try to build binutils and gcc at the same time, libssp/configure
complains while compiling (and linking) the following program and the
build process stops.
I don't
Ian Lance Taylor ian@airs.com writes:
Steven Bosscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So you have a few instructions bundled into a VLIW instruction, and
one of the instructions in the bundle is moved into the delay slot,
thus breaking your VLIW bundle. Right?
I think there are two natural
i have entered a bug for gimp (#309170) in which gimp would crash when i opened
an image of the same resolution as my current screen. in that situation, gimp
automatically downscales the image to fit on the screen.
when gimp was compiled with -mfpmath=sse the crash would occur. on recompiling
See a fortran program:
$ cat t.f
integer nz
assign 93 to nz
go to nz,(93)
93 continue
end
$ gfortran -v
Target: ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc/configure --enable-languages=c,f95 --
prefix=/home/wf/loc
al
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.1.0 20050704
This program:
int ffs();
int ffs()
{ return 0; }
Gives the following error messages:
ffs.c: In function `ffs':
ffs.c:4: error: number of arguments doesn't match prototype
cc1: error: prototype declaration
If I add void in the argument list I get the following:
ffs.c:1: warning: conflicting
The following code
#include xmmintrin.h
extern C double
fadd(double a, double b)
{
__m128d a1;
__m128d b1;
__m128d c;
double res;
_mm_loadl_pd(a1, a);
_mm_loadl_pd(b1, b);
c = _mm_add_sd(a1, b1);
_mm_storel_pd(res, c);
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
09:23 ---
Confirmed. This is a target-specific bug.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||pluto at agmk dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22292
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-04 09:36
---
This is fixed in 4.0, where one gets a warning (not an error) independent of
whether there was a previous declaration. Since it could even be argued
that erroring out is OK (although then it should be consistent),
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
09:36 ---
OK, I'll run that change through dejagnu and commit if there are no problems.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
09:53 ---
Confirmed, only a 3.4 regression.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
09:53 ---
Changing component, since we are only missing the updated .po file.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22292
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:00 ---
Confirmed, This is a fortran front-end or gimplifier bug.
Look at what the gimplifier produces:
int4 nz.0 = -2; // --- this is not gimple
nz.0 = -1;
nz.1 = __label_93;
D.475 = nz.0 != -1;
--
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
Keywords||ssemmx, wrong-code
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code, ssemmx,
||wrong-code
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:10 ---
This fails the same way on powerpc-darwin which is 32bit too.
--
What|Removed |Added
GCC
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18819
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|contrib/gcc_update hard code|[3.4 only]
|-r gcc-3_4-branch |contrib/gcc_update hard code
|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:26 ---
I am no longer working on this, this is a much harder problem than I sugested.
This is basically the
same as PR 18268.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:26 ---
I am no longer working on this, this is a much harder problem than I sugested.
This is basically the
same as PR 18268.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:38 ---
Patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00155.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
Since gcc 4.0.0 the following code snippet causes a segfault:
struct A
{
friend ~A();
};
=
bug.cc:3: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report, [etc.]
The compiler used to give a warning
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:44 ---
Confirmed. This was introduced after 20041124 but before 20050225.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04 10:47
---
On hppa64-hp-hpux11.23, appeared between 2005-06-27 07:39 UTC and 2005-06-27
07:42 UTC, so stack protection patch is responsible.
On ia64-hp-hpux11.23, appeared between 2005-06-28 19:33 UTC and 2005-06-28
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
10:52 ---
This is invalid code.
The following is still invalid code (but closer to legal code):
struct B
{
~B();
};
struct A
{
friend ~B();
};
Add B:: infront of the destructor fixes both the ICE and validness
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
12:18 ---
Testing a patch for this.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot
--- Additional Comments From fengwang at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
12:38 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Confirmed, This is a fortran front-end or gimplifier bug.
Look at what the gimplifier produces:
int4 nz.0 = -2; // --- this is not gimple
I am not very clear the gimple
--- Additional Comments From uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
12:45 ---
I don't see it failing on the 4.0 branch. I haven't been able to build
mainline Ada for several months now ...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19381
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
13:30 ---
Subject: Bug 22039
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-04 13:30:46
Modified files:
gcc/ada: s-sopco3.ads s-sopco4.ads
--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
13:32 ---
Fixed
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
13:49 ---
Are you sure this reduced testcase is an accurate reflection of the
real one? The transformation performed by gcc appears to be correct.
For example, r00450DB4 evaluates to 0, so anything ANDed with it
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
13:52 ---
Oops, the following line was bogus:
UINT32 r00450994 = opt_not(r0045025C);// b = not (N) :fffddef7
the value should be . It doesn't affect the analysis though.
--
--- Additional Comments From andreast at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:08 ---
Confused :)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00190.html
is the --enable-checking ok ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22253
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:15 ---
Hmm, weird, oh well the reduced testcase still fails on the mainline.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22253
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:28 ---
We need a testcase.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:28 ---
int4 nz.0 = -2; look line an INIT_EXPR. It should be
int4 nz.0;
nz.0 = -2
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22290
--- Additional Comments From charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
15:30 ---
Given your last comment (a variable set to 4), it still looks very much like
a codegen issue to me, and likely target dependent.
I guess a next step could be to either look at the ssa transformations
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-07-04
15:34 ---
To produce a testcase, you could try extracting the routine that is miscompiled
and attach it to this bug (in a compilable form, so preprocessed with all
needed headers). I believe the GIMP folk can help
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
16:05 ---
The code does not do what you want it to do:
You want:
#include xmmintrin.h
extern C double
fadd(double a, double b)
{
__m128d a1;
__m128d b1;
__m128d c;
double res;
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
17:03 ---
s/face/fact/
This is the patch I am testing right now:
* fold-const.c (fold_build1): Add checksum for the operands.
(fold_build2): Likewise.
(fold_build3): Likewise.
Index: fold-const.c
See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00159.html.
And http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00200.html (but HJL is wrong
about arc.h).
--
Summary: [4.1 Regression] libgcov references POSIX functions
(broken on *-elf and newlib targets)
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
17:42 ---
Confirmed based on those two emails.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
On both Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64, I got
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc]$ gdb cc1
GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.3.0.0-1.21rh)
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
17:49 ---
Subject: Bug 22279
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-07-04 17:49:17
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-structalias.c
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04 17:52
---
mainline testresults no longer show failure after patch applied.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
17:54 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 21828 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
17:54 ---
*** Bug 22295 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-04 17:59 ---
Gcc Red Hat 4.0.0-8 seems OK. Does Red Hat have a fix on gcc-4_0-rhl-branch?
This bug makes it very hard to debug binaries generated by gcc 4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21828
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
18:16 ---
Patch posted here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00205.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-04 18:21 ---
I checked the current gcc-4_0-rhl-branch in CVS. It has the same problem.
Can we revisit bug 18556? I can test both.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
19:15 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--
Bug 22277 depends on bug 22279, which changed state.
Bug 22279 Summary: [4.1 Regression] ICE in first_vi_for_offset, at
tree-ssa-structalias.c:2566
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22279
What|Old Value |New Value
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
19:17 ---
Mine, patch posted: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00211.html.
--
What|Removed |Added
gcc.dg/sibcall-3.c and gcc.dg/sibcall-4.c FAIL on ARM THUMB.
Reading
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg01088.html
I am inclined to XFAIL the test on ARM THUMB,
but I don't know how I would do that on ARM THUMB but not ARM ARM.
--
Summary: gcc.dg/sibcall-3.c and
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
19:28 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Additional Comments From hjl at lucon dot org 2005-07-04 20:06 ---
My patch doesn't handle uninitiliazed local variables correctly. The difference
between C and C++ is C++ writes out variables first.
--
What|Removed |Added
Take the following code (useless example but just shows the problem, there are
other testcase which
show the problem too which less useless):
#include string.h
int g(char *);
int f(void)
{
char *s;
strcpy(s,s);
return g(s);
}
--
Summary: [4.0/4.1 Regression] missing
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
20:46 ---
The patch here fixes one issue:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00211.html.
But the next problem is located in the front-end:
#0 default_function_array_conversion (exp={value = 0x41da9f00,
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:16 ---
How many still fail today?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20623
$ cat a_fortran.f90
subroutine f
print *, '##'
end
$ gfortran -c a_fortran.f90
$ cat a.c
extern void f_(void);
int main (void)
{
f_ ();
}
$ ./irun/bin/gcc -c a.c
$ gfortran -static a.o a_fortran.o ./a.out
Fortran runtime error: End of record
$ gfortran a.o
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel dot franke at imbs
||dot uni-luebeck dot de
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:35 ---
Isn't this fixed now or does this need to be submitted still?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17667
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:41 ---
This is dup of bug 15911.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15911 ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:41 ---
*** Bug 20065 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15911
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:41 ---
VRP does not work on this either.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:46 ---
Fixed on the mainline.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:54 ---
Actually the testcase above is not really valid.
The below testcase is more correct as A::p cannot be inlined as it has its
address taken (stupid bug in
the C++ front-end really).
But here is a better
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
22:21 ---
Confirmed, this is most likely a sub register problem.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04 23:21
---
There was a change of behavior between
LAST_UPDATED Sun Jun 19 20:05:45 UTC 2005 and Mon Jun 27 21:26:27 UTC 2005;
some tests now fail at -O1. So whatever pass now runs at -O1 that used to run
at -O2 and higher
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
23:32 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
There was a change of behavior between
LAST_UPDATED Sun Jun 19 20:05:45 UTC 2005 and Mon Jun 27 21:26:27 UTC
2005;
some tests now fail at -O1. So whatever pass now runs at -O1
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-07-04 23:42
---
... alternately, one we really care about, performance-wise, could be distilled
from libstdc++-v3/testsuite/performance/27_io/fmtflags_manipulators.cc...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3713
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
00:02 ---
I have a fix which I will be testing over night.
--
What|Removed |Added
Compiling with -O1 or above.
All even length strings go to .section .rodata.jutf8.#, odd length strings
do not.
class small {
public static void main(String[] a) {
String S2 = XX;
String S3 = ODD;
String S4 = ;
String S5 = ODD55;
String S6 = XX;
String S8 = ;
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 00:40
---
I was about to enter a separate report, but it seems the bug is the same as this
one, so I just add the following as a comment. A few more failures than the
original report; I don't know what to make of that.
--- Additional Comments From jh at suse dot cz 2005-07-05 00:54 ---
Subject: Re: Const/pure function detection during tree-based profiling
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04
21:35 ---
Isn't this fixed now or does this need to be
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05 00:58
---
For mmix-knuth-mmixware, both simd-1.c and simd-2.c fail with the same message
in gcc.log. For cris-axis-elf and cris-axis-linux-gnu, only simd-2.c fail.
The regression was introduced between LAST_UPDATED
Wed
With LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 4 22:31:48 UTC 2005 I get:
Running /home/hp/combined/combined/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/tree-ssa.exp
...
...
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr22051-2.c scan-tree-dump-times if \(\(int\) q 1
This is a new test, and has always failed on mmix-knuth-mmixware.
It passes on
On powerpc-darwin, we don't have undwind.h installed which means that the build
now fails on the
mainline if you install into a clean prefix.
See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-06/msg01293.html.
--
Summary: [4.1 Regression] Ada does not build into a clean prefix
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-05
01:42 ---
I should mention that raise.c is a part of compiling gnat1, the compiler, maybe
it should not be
including that header.
--
What|Removed |Added
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
