undefined BITS_PER_UNIT

When building gcc-4.1.0 with uclibc im getting and undefined BITS_PER_UNIT error when building libgcc at the muldi3. Where should this be defined? I added this definition in tm.h just to be able to finish the build. -- www.smsglobal.net SMS Global Ltd Short Message Service For Seafarers

Re: when does Optimization happen....

> I understand that gcc -On happens before generating assembly code (.s), is > it correct? Yes. > But some optimization, such as inlining, may require cross > compilation-unit (i.e, cross file) information. It seems that these > kind of optization is better to be handled at link time (thus, cro

Re: Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of gcc

On 3/5/06, Ben Chelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Right now, we're guarding access to the actual defects that we report > for a couple of reasons: (1) We think that you, as developers of gcc, > should have the chance to look at the defects we find to patch them > before random other folks get to

Coverity Open Source Defect Scan of gcc

Hello gcc Developers, I'm the CTO of Coverity, Inc., a company that does static source code analysis to look for defects in code. You may have heard of us or of our technology from its days at Stanford (the "Stanford Checker"). The reason I'm writing is because we have set up a framework int

Re: GCC-3.4.6 release status

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >A pre-release of GCC-3.4.6 is available at > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.6-20060301/ > > > Please download and test. This looks fine for s390(x)-ibm-linux: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg00291.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-te

when does Optimization happen....

I understand that gcc -On happens before generating assembly code (.s), is it correct? #gcc -S main.c; gcc -o a.out main.s (here without optimization) #gcc -O2 -S main.c; gcc -o a1.out main.s (here with optimization of O2) But some optimization, such as inlining, may require cross compilation-un

Re: GCC 4.0.3 RC1

Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 4.0.3 RC1 is available here: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.3-20060303 > > Please download and test! Looking good on s390(x)-ibm-linux: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg00289.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-03/msg00290.htm

Re: does gcc 4.1 generate "faster" binaries than earlier gcc versions?

Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: David Daney wrote: You don't say what version of Binutils you are using. But with recent snapshots of Binutils you can use '-Wa,-mno-shared, -ffunction-sections -fdata-sections -Wl,--gc-sections' to good effect on mips[el]-linux. I'm using binutils 2.16.1. Does i

Re: A bug ( ? ) and a question

On Mar 5, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Mike Stump wrote: The string is a bit trickier, strncpy (newbuf, buf+30, 40); newbuf [70] = 0; [40] = 0; I meant of course.

Re: A bug ( ? ) and a question

First, let me say this is the wrong list for how to program in C++, comp.lang.c++ would be better, or even comp.lang.c would be better. gcc-help would the a second choice. On Mar 5, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Nieuwenhuizen, JK wrote: cout << "Done"; This doesn't output anything immediately. E

Re: Question on loop.c removal

On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Richard Kenner wrote: Forgive my ignorance, but I'm confused as to what pass now handles loop invariants that are created at the tree->RTL level. For example, if you have X + C for C too large to be in the add insn on a machine. A new RTL pass called move loop

Question on loop.c removal

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm confused as to what pass now handles loop invariants that are created at the tree->RTL level. For example, if you have X + C for C too large to be in the add insn on a machine.

GCC 4.0.3 RC1

GCC 4.0.3 RC1 is available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.3-20060303 Please download and test! As always, please report problems via Bugzilla, adding me to the CC: list for the bug report. Because this is a maintenance release for 4.0.x, problems that also exist in previous 4.0.

A bug ( ? ) and a question

Dear Sirs, I use the gcc 3.3.5 20050117 prerelease that came with SuSe 10 and have a problem and a question. The problem first: When debugging programs like this: quote - using namespace std; #include #include class Nwh { char Firstname [12]; int age; public: Nwh ( char *

Re: does gcc 4.1 generate "faster" binaries than earlier gcc versions?

David Daney wrote: Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: Perhaps the question is a bit silly, but I thought I'd ask it anyway. I'm compiling some software for a Linux/uClibc on a mipsel platform. Right now I'm using gcc 3.4.4 to do both native and cross-compilation. A while ago gcc 4.1 was released, and

Re: gcc-4.1.0 hangs with -pipe -v --help

On Sunday 05 March 2006 12:27, René Rebe wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 05 March 2006 12:12, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > gcc-4.1.0 hangs when called with -pipe -v --help. > > > > I can't reproduce that on ia64-linux. Please see > >

Re: gcc-4.1.0 hangs with -pipe -v --help

Hi, On Sunday 05 March 2006 12:12, Andreas Schwab wrote: > René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > gcc-4.1.0 hangs when called with -pipe -v --help. > > I can't reproduce that on ia64-linux. Please see > for how to report bugs. thanks for this valueable feed

Re: gcc-4.1.0 hangs with -pipe -v --help

René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > gcc-4.1.0 hangs when called with -pipe -v --help. I can't reproduce that on ia64-linux. Please see for how to report bugs. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5

gcc-4.1.0 hangs with -pipe -v --help

Hi all, gcc-4.1.0 hangs when called with -pipe -v --help. This interesting combinations of argument pops up during compilation of xemacs, which invokes gcc -v --help during configure and our build environment injects (among others) -pipe. Yours, -- René Rebe - Rubensstr. 64 - 12157 Berlin (Eu

Re: Preserving bootstrap with non-GCC compilers

> You just have to write the test in the toplevel configure.in, and place > it just before the AC_SUBST(stage1_cflags). Thanks! > The maintainers may think it different, but I won't see anything wrong > in having a simpler > >if test "$GCC" = yes; then > stage1_cflags="${stage1_cflags} -