Re: Inconsistency in runtime target tool search

As an aside, the cross compiler successfully builds and links target libraries because it uses: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-build$ cat gcc/as #!/bin/sh exec /opt/odcctools/bin/i386-apple-darwin8.4.1-as "$@" [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/gcc-build$ cat gcc/collect-ld #!/bin/sh exec /opt/odcctools/bin/i386-

What do these mean?

Hi , Can someone please let me know what the extensions t02 & original mean in the filename test.c.t02.original after compiling test.c using the option fdump-tree-original-raw, generating an AST? Darth -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-do-these-mean--t1046908.html#a2

Re: What do these mean?

Darthrader (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: > Can someone please let me know what the extensions t02 & original > mean in the filename test.c.t02.original after compiling test.c using > the option fdump-tree-original-raw, generating an AST? > t02 = tree dump #2. original = dump of the original source

Re: What do these mean?

Thanx for ur reply Diego. Got a few more queries... What does the number '02' signify? Can I change that ? How? Darthrader -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/What-do-these-mean--t1046908.html#a2720928 Sent from the gcc - Dev forum at Nabble.com.

Re: What do these mean?

Darthrader (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: > What does the number '02' signify? > Please read my message again. It's the 2nd dump file in the tree optimization pipeline. > Can I change that ? How? > No. It depends on pass ordering. See init_optimization_passes in passes.c.

Machine Dependance

Is the AST[Abstract Syntax Tree] machine dependent? I read some where that it should be machine independent but when i compiled a c program and generated its AST using -fdump-tree-original-raw on gcc-4.0.0 , there were certain node values ,which were diifferent on different machines like algn,

AST

Can someone give a good link to any information about the Abstract Syntax Tree. Any help will be appreciated. TIA, Darthrader -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/AST-t1047504.html#a2722321 Sent from the gcc - Dev forum at Nabble.com.

Re: Machine Dependance

Darthrader (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: Is the AST[Abstract Syntax Tree] machine dependent? The nodes that are generated for the program as it is parsed are machine independent. However: 1) this can only be true if your source code is already preprocessed. Otherwise, the source code that GC

ECCN Request - GCC

Hi - I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you please let me know if it contains any encryption? Thank you, Collette 8

Re: ECCN Request - GCC

> I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you > please let me know if it contains any encryption? > You mean besides the documentation itself which is cryptic at times? No. IIRC, there some one way hashes used, but no encryption. Your question is amusing considering ever

Re: ECCN Request - GCC

> "Steve" == sjhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you >> please let me know if it contains any encryption? Steve> You mean besides the documentation itself which is cryptic at times? No. Steve> IIRC, there some one way hashe

RE: ECCN Request - GCC

On 02 February 2006 17:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you >> please let me know if it contains any encryption? >> > You mean besides the documentation itself which is cryptic at times? No. > IIRC, there some one way hashes used,

RE: ECCN Request - GCC

On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Dave Korn wrote: > On 02 February 2006 17:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you > >> please let me know if it contains any encryption? > >> > > You mean besides the documentation itself which is cryptic at tim

Re: ECCN Request - GCC

On Feb 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you please let me know if it contains any encryption? You mean besides the documentation itself which is cryptic at times? No. IIRC, there some one way hashes used, but

Re: ECCN Request - GCC

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 10:34:35AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: > > "Steve" == sjhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> I'm trying to determine if we can export the GNU GCC product. Can you > >> please let me know if it contains any encryption? > > Steve> You mean besides the documentation its

Re: Machine Dependance

Thanx for ur reply.I have a few more questions below: Paolo Bonzini-2 wrote: > > Darthrader (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: >> Is the AST[Abstract Syntax Tree] machine dependent? > > The nodes that are generated for the program as it is parsed are machine > independent. However: > > 1) this can

Re: Machine Dependance

Sorry if I am more terse this time. Also, these questions are now more suited for the gcc-help list, rather than this one which is for development of GCC itself. # 1 "test.c" # 1 " " # 1 " " # 1 "test.c" What do these represent? Try "info cpp", and search for "Preprocessor Output". Kindl

Re: Reconsidering gcjx

Andrew Haley dixit: > > Thorsten> Why not keep enough support in jc1 to bootstrap ecj? > > > > We don't know how much of the language that would be. > >And we can't tell _a priori_. As I understand it, the intention is to >use upstream sources, and they will change. Just keep the current state

Re: Machine Dependance

Hey Paolo thanx a lot.I got the info I required. Can u mention any links that i can use as a reference to understand the dump output of -fdump-tree-original-raw as AST? Thanx a lot. Darthrader -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Machine-Dependance-t1047440.html#a27256

i386-rtems does not build on head

This is a breakage in about the past week. I built a native compiler from the same source. Does this look familiar to anyone? home/joel/gcc-work/head/b-i386-rtems4.7/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/joel/gcc-work/head/b-i386-rtems4.7/./gcc/ -nostdinc -B/ho me/joel/gcc-work/head/b-i386-rtems4.7/i386-rtems4.

Re: i386-rtems does not build on head

If this help, I'd like to add that I succesfully compiled gcc-4.2-20060128.tar.bz2 for the same configuration. Cheers, Karel On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Joel Sherrill wrote: This is a breakage in about the past week. I built a native compiler from the same source. Does this look familiar to any

Re: i386-rtems does not build on head

Karel Gardas wrote: If this help, I'd like to add that I succesfully compiled gcc-4.2-20060128.tar.bz2 for the same configuration. I think my last SVN update that built for me was a couple of days before that. --joel Cheers, Karel On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Joel Sherrill wrote: This is a

[Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Request from Lee Millward

Can someone help Lee with SSH and SVN checking issues? He has a read+write access to GCC sources. -- Gaby --- Begin Message --- I'm following the instructions from this page on settnig up your local tree for write access - http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html The command I issue is: svn switch -

Re: [Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Request from Lee Millward

On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Can someone help Lee with SSH and SVN checking issues? I'd recommend contacting [EMAIL PROTECTED] He has a read+write access to GCC sources. Apparently not.

Re: [HELP take two] GCC 4.1 branch Ada status on powerpc-darwin?

On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 22:00 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Could someone with powerpc-darwin access check wether Ada is now working > > or not, if not populate bugzilla? > > The compiler bootstraps fine but all ACATS tests fail to link. You need to > manually pass -static-libgcc at link time.

Re: Thoughts on imposing a 100k per-comment limit

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 12:42:35AM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Would anyone object to me just telling bugzilla to reject comments > > 100k in length? Nope. Tell the user to use the attachment feature. > (i've chosen 100k to keep arguments about what the "right" length is. I > believe *everyon

gcc-4.0-20060202 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.0-20060202 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20060202/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: [Lee Millward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Re: Request from Lee Millward

Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Can someone help Lee with SSH and SVN checking issues? | | I'd recommend contacting [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll send it there. | > He has a read+write access to GCC sources. | | Apparently not. I said

svn funniness?

When bulk merging trunk to local release branch, svn reports whole file conflicts as 'A'. :-( svn status after the merge is necessary to find the conflicts. I'm using svn client: mrs $ svn --version svn, version 1.3.0 (r17949) compiled Jan 4 2006, 12:42:53 and the server was either the

Re: svn funniness?

Mike Stump wrote: > When bulk merging trunk to local release branch, svn reports whole file > conflicts as 'A'. :-( > If you can give me a way to reproduce it, i can fix it. I've never seen such behavior. AFAIK, all conflicts should be flagged as C, whole file or not.

Use predicates for RTL objects

Do people still want (GET_CODE (rtx) == XXX) cleaned up to XXX_P(RTX). If so I notice that there are quite a few of the following: 200 of GET_CODE(rtx) == PLUS ---> PLUS_P(rtx) 50 of GET_CODE(rtx) == MINUS > MINUS_P(rtx) 550 of GET_CODE(rtx) == CONST_INT ---> CONST_INT_P(rtx) 70 of GET_CO

Re: Use predicates for RTL objects

> Do people still want (GET_CODE (rtx) == XXX) cleaned up to XXX_P(RTX). I would think so -- did you get that from the beginner's project list? > I would probably do all the plus/minus stuff first. Submit that as a patch. Sure. Please read the patch submission guidelines before starting. > ps.