> AIX snuck in increased stack alignment in 32-bit mode along the
> way. STACK_BOUNDARY should be increased to 128 for AIX. Transitioning
> could be tricky.
Thanks, we'll try and see what we can do.
--
Eric Botcazou
Dear Mike, dear Sirs.
Thank you very much for the letter. The idea of runtime linking seems to be
quite natural, therefore last half a year couple of time I thought myself a
madman. I am glad to see your letter, it means if it be I am crazy I am not
alone :-)
Close to the matter. Let me summariz
> I'm looking at the fp-bit.h, fp-bit.c, and try to understand the
> floating point operation simulation. But there are many proper noun
> hard to get the conception. Such as
You might find the code easier to follow with a quick skim of: "What
Every Computer Scientist Should Know about Floating-Po
Hi,
I've successfully built gcc 3.4.4 on Tru64 5.1B alphaev56-dec-osf5.1 which is
not currently on your build page.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/buildstat.html
Sorry - no test results, but I have since used it to build cvsnt 2.5.03.2214
and it all seems to work...
* Output from running srcdir/co
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 07:25:58PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Eric Lemings wrote:
> >>Right now the infrastructure for it isn't there, but someday
> >>it will be. But how would you indicate to the debugger what
> >>constituted "uninteresting" headers?
> >
> >I figure
On Jan 18, 2006, at 9:41 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
working in my device driver, I learned that the exception
processing code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak
to me. It seems like one of the most critical time
On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Eric Lemings wrote:
Right now the infrastructure for it isn't there, but someday
it will be. But how would you indicate to the debugger what
constituted "uninteresting" headers?
I figure the responsibility for this would probably reside more
with the compiler than
On Jan 18, 2006, at 5:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
build a 1-stage GCC with --disable-bootstrap. And that's never
going to happen.
I tend to like long term stability in who things are done, but I'm
not stuck in the mud, the
Hi,
I'm looking at the fp-bit.h, fp-bit.c, and try to understand the
floating point operation simulation. But there are many proper noun
hard to get the conception. Such as
NGARDS
IMPLICIT_1
Are there any details or documents about these?
Thanks
Eric.
> Most of the tweaks involve turning selected warnings off.
FYI this is in.
#pragma GCC diagnostic (warning|error|ignored) "-Wwhatever"
No push/pop yet, it's currently file-scope. See the threads with
"warning control" in the subject.
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 1:17 PM
> To: Eric Lemings
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Excluding C++ Library Code
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:08:55PM -0700, Eric Lemings wrote:
> > Greetings,
On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:41:39AM -0600, Perry Smith wrote:
In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
code calls malloc during the exception. This s
On 1/18/06, Hardy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to write a symbol reader for some
> gcc-generated, embedded programms. They are for a
> relatifly "unknown" mipsX cpu. The binaries seem to be
> in a.out format.
> Where can I find infos how the debug-symbols are
> organuzed? Is this platt
> Yes the workaround is to add -fexceptions or -shared-libgcc to the
> command line when linking libgnat but I don't know if that is the correct
> fix or some hacking to config/darwin.h is needed.
Thanks. However, that's not sufficient because the tools fail to build too:
../../xgcc -B../../ -DI
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:41:39AM -0600, Perry Smith wrote:
> > In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
> > working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
> > code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak to me. It
> > seems l
On Jan 18, 2006, at 12:28 PM, Chris Douty wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
OK, I can reproduce the failure.
Darwin specialists, what are we missing here?
Well it would be helpful if the reporter reran the link line
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 11:41:39AM -0600, Perry Smith wrote:
> In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
> working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
> code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak to me. It
> seems like one of th
In the course of doing my work last week to get exception handling
working in my device driver, I learned that the exception processing
code calls malloc during the exception. This seems weak to me. It
seems like one of the most critical times to throw an exception is
when malloc fails.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:10:19AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Someone's informed Richard Stallman that this (annoying) warning
> >will not be
> >enabled by default in GCC 4.1.
>
> >But, it currently seems to be. Should it be turned off be
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
OK, I can reproduce the failure.
Darwin specialists, what are we missing here?
Well it would be helpful if the reporter reran the link line with -
v so
people can see what is being linked.
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-results/4_1-2006-01-17.gz
(Too large to be accepted here.)
So I have a question. I've installed the latest Xcode release, or,
at least I think I did:
[lindv2:gcc/4.1/objdir64] lucier% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8
Conf
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:44:37AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:36:13AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> | > MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
> | > build a 1-stage GCC with --d
On Jan 16, 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote:
> What it used to be "make" and "make bootstrap" are (and will be)
> "./configure --disable-bootstrap && make" and "./configure && make".
> Rerunning configure is a pain! It's never just "./configure", but
> has the source direc
[please keep me CC'ed]
Hi,
In 4.1, -fwhole-program was introduced. Unfortunately it currently looks
like it won't work in the 4.1-release (due to PR 25795).
Would it make sense to add a define for this attribute to ansidecl.h
like in the attached proposed patch against mainline?
thank you,
Bernh
AIX snuck in increased stack alignment in 32-bit mode along the
way. STACK_BOUNDARY should be increased to 128 for AIX. Transitioning
could be tricky.
David
I have to write a symbol reader for some
gcc-generated, embedded programms. They are for a
relatifly "unknown" mipsX cpu. The binaries seem to be
in a.out format.
Where can I find infos how the debug-symbols are
organuzed? Is this plattform-depended or gvv-version
dependend?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:17:17AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The testsuite is way broken and does not run all the tests:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00878.html
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00876.h
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:36:13AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
| > MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
| > build a 1-stage GCC with --disable-bootstrap. And that's never going
| > to happen.
| >
| > One wo
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:36:13AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
> build a 1-stage GCC with --disable-bootstrap. And that's never going
> to happen.
>
> One would hope that wouldn't, but what I heard was an objection
>
On Jan 18, 2006, at 6:16 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
mkdir.o socket.o raise-gcc.o \
-Wl,-flat_namespace \
-lm
ld: Undefined symbols:
__Unwind_Resume
__Unwind_ForcedUnwind
__Unwind_GetDataRelBase
__Unwind_GetIP
__Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
__Unwind_GetRegionStart
__Unwind_GetTe
MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
build a 1-stage GCC with --disable-bootstrap. And that's never going
to happen.
One would hope that wouldn't, but what I heard was an objection
against removing what's there now, namely the capability to bootstrap
GCC a
Richard Kenner wrote:
I've seen many people saying not wanting something to go away, but
that something is not proposed by Paolo to disappear.
Can you say *exactly* what those two different things are because I'm confused?
Thanks.
MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not bei
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 12:11:46AM +0100, Philippe De Muyter wrote:
> > GCC diffs upto 3.4.0 are available here:
> >
> >ftp://ftp.back2roots.org/pub/geekgadgets/amiga/m68k/alpha/gcc/
>
> I have downloaded them, and found the -baserel(32) and -resident(32) options.
-resident is translated to
I've seen many people saying not wanting something to go away, but
that something is not proposed by Paolo to disappear.
Can you say *exactly* what those two different things are because I'm confused?
Thanks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
| As I said multiple times, *of course* bootstrapping will *never* be
| mandatory. On the other hand, GCC-only bootstrapping
| (i.e. configuring with disabled bootstrap, and then typing "make
| bootstrap") will be deleted.
|
| You've now
Who? Most people I've read the messages of, believed that
disable-bootstrap would have been deleted tout court, without providing
a way of building a non-self-built GCC.
There are too many negations in that sentence for me to understand exactly
what you're saying, but what I'm sayin
Richard Kenner wrote:
As I said multiple times, *of course* bootstrapping will *never* be
mandatory. On the other hand, GCC-only bootstrapping
(i.e. configuring with disabled bootstrap, and then typing "make
bootstrap") will be deleted.
You've now heard *a lot* of people say that t
As I said multiple times, *of course* bootstrapping will *never* be
mandatory. On the other hand, GCC-only bootstrapping
(i.e. configuring with disabled bootstrap, and then typing "make
bootstrap") will be deleted.
You've now heard *a lot* of people say that they don't want this d
Hello,
Having followed this thread and searched a little bit more, I understand
that -fstack-usage will dump information into a file at compile time.
However, I was wondering whether something similar would be possible at
run-time.
I am working on multithreaded libraries and I know that many
> mkdir.o socket.o raise-gcc.o \
> -Wl,-flat_namespace \
>-lm
> ld: Undefined symbols:
> __Unwind_Resume
> __Unwind_ForcedUnwind
> __Unwind_GetDataRelBase
> __Unwind_GetIP
> __Unwind_GetLanguageSpecificData
> __Unwind_GetRegionStart
> __Unwind_GetTextRelBase
> __Unwind_RaiseException
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > I guess the fix for PR tree-optimization/22555 could make some difference
> > if fortran uses a lot of structures with embedded arrays. Basically this
> > enables decomposing these structures for aliasing purposes and shoul
On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Someone's informed Richard Stallman that this (annoying) warning
will not be
enabled by default in GCC 4.1.
But, it currently seems to be. Should it be turned off before the
release?
The SC or Jim Wilson will know more than I.
If
Bernd Trog wrote:
> By "real" I ment the actual stack usage (which is -Ox dependent) and by
> "worst case" I ment by looking simply at the code before any optimization.
>
> The actual stack usage would be most interesting, of course.
Of course, and is actually what -fstack-usage will report. I h
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The testsuite is way broken and does not run all the tests:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00878.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00876.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00886.html
> http:/
44 matches
Mail list logo
