Christian Joensson wrote:
On 4/10/06, Christian Joensson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
checking for jar... no
checking for fastjar... no
configure: error: jar program not found
make[1]: *** [configure-target-libjava] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir32'
make: ***
On 4/10/06, David Daney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fastjar was removed from gcc. You now need either a working jar program
or to disable java when building.
uhm, well...
$ rpmquery -f /usr/bin/fastjar
libgcj-4.1.0-0.23
so I suppose at least for me, fatsjar is still in gcc-4.1.0...
--
Cheers,
On 4/10/06, David Daney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correct. It was removed on the trunk after gcc-4.1 branched. Since it
appears to in /usr/bin, make sure that is in the path when
configuring/building the trunk.
right, I'm bubblestrapping right now after having installed the libgcj package..
Does anyone have any ideas about what gcc support is like for targets with
no data stack? The 14 bit cores (16F) mostly have a 2-8 level hardware
stack, which is not part of the program or data memory, and is not
addressable. There is no data stack.
I'm hoping that there is an existing
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:45:04PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
Tach auch!
Am Fr, den 31 März 2006, schrieb Alan Modra:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:56:13AM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
If I try to compile qemu with GCC
Ok I was wrong. Maybe you could contact John Elliott
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), because I 'm not an English native speaker
and I don't understand all the juridic terms. I also think that the
goodness of the question often makes the goodness of the answer.
Best regards,
Francois Poulain
Le dimanche 09
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 07:54:24AM +, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
I'm hoping that there is an existing backend architecture where there is no
stack, so that I can have a peep to see how the code fakes stack support,
but so far, all the obvious candidates (the microcontrollers) seem to have
Hi!
Im writing a backend for GCC 4.0-2 for a simple machine with a rather limited
instruction set. With the kind help of Ian Lance Taylor I was already able to
solve a few big problems I had earlier. Now I am stuck on another problem
that IMHO concerns reloading.
Most of the instructions of
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Frank Riese wrote:
Most of the instructions of the target machine only support registers as
operands. E.g., a store to a memory location (STO) must always take a
register containing the address of the memory location and another register
with the
Rick Edwards wrote:
We are a strong and growing company working in some very advanced DSP
silicon.
We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
GCC lists. Instead, it was suggested that people work through the FSF's
job-listing service. Unfortunately, I can't find
On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Just as a reminder, even though the Microchip code is covered by
the GPL, code based on it won't be acceptable for inclusion into
FSF GCC unless you can get Microchip to sign a copyright
assignment, which seems unlikely.
Would seem
Hi Daniel and Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses left.
Thanks,
Kazu Hirata
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Kazu Hirata wrote:
Hi Daniel and Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/06 15:23, Kazu Hirata wrote:
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Thoughts?
We don't want to open the flood gates to random recruiters for random
software, however, I never saw the harm in solicitations from gcc
contributors for people to work on gcc. If we were to relax the
current policy, we can
Hi Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses left.
It's happening in the mem-ssa branch. But switching
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:48:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
GCC lists...
Recently, there has your message, and Benjamin Kosnik's message about
internships -- so we need to either reconfirm the earlier policy, or
Joe Buck wrote:
I'm inclined to think that it serves gcc if the list can be used to
recruit people to work on gcc for pay. Of course an FSF list cannot
sanction offers for proprietary software development, and I wouldn't want
to see offers for unrelated software work.
You and Mike have
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
You and Mike have suggested that recruiting GCC developers is a
reasonable use of the list. Before we go to the SC, asking for approval
to change the policy, we should address some other issues:
1. What do we do if people do advertise
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'd rather not open the door to job postings, even for GCC
snip
I see myself as a consumer of this list and not a producer so it is
hard to see myself as having a vote. But if I
On Apr 10, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free
software
jobs
Ask them not to, ultimately the same thing we do with spammers. :-)
or not purely free software jobs?
If on the wiki, edit out all the parts that aren't and
Mike Stump wrote:
3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to those who are not. Traditional spam and
things better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/06 17:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
Thus, I vote with Jeff.
Likewise. Companies ought to send job ads to comp.compilers or use the
FSF listing service.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Dear mailing list,
is there something wrong with the following code?
--
basic_block my_basic_block;
basic_block dup_basic_block;
FOR_EACH_BB(my_basic_block)
{
dup_basic_block = duplicate_block(bb, NULL);
}
--
I get an ICE in get_indirect_ref_operands, with the backtrace:
--
#0
Again, the GCC3 distribution has a port of the IP2K microcontroller.
It has a hardware call stack, but the data stack is implemented
entirely in software.
You will have to dedicate a register to act as the data-stack
pointer. I suppose if you limit yourself to
writing functions with NO
DJ Delorie wrote:
Here, if Company A and Company B both want to recruit, but A adheres
to the policy while B does not, A loses.
I think that's a compelling reason to keep it at no ads.
It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite the
initial sentiment in the other
On Apr 10, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to
[note subject change, since I suspect it's not v850-specific]
There are 18 target directories that define DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO (not
counting all those that get it from elfos.h et al) but only 8 that
define DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO (both from just a simple grep).
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:41:25 -0400
Hello
I've subscribed to the gcc mailing list from my work account
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but none of my posts appear on the mailing
list... The mail doesn't get bounced back so I assume it's getting
delivered, but nonetheless my posts don't show up on the list... Is
there someone who can
What is the procedure for updating my public key
on gcc.gnu.org? Note, I long ago forgot the
passwd (if I even had one) for my account, so
using scp is out of the question because I no longer
have ssh access (for some reason).
To make a long story short, my hard drive decided to
scramble
I want to write a pass to walk the gimple tree and add some intrumentation
code. I read the chapter 9 of GCC Internals document, and it seems not to
describe the Macros to do so.
Can I get some information about this? Specifically, if someone can show me
which .h file I should look at to find
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:47:26PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
What is the procedure for updating my public key
on gcc.gnu.org? Note, I long ago forgot the
passwd (if I even had one) for my account, so
using scp is out of the question because I no longer
have ssh access (for some reason).
* Mark Mitchell:
1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free software
jobs, or not purely free software jobs? How pure is pure? Does Port
GCC to proprietary OS count as free or not?
And: Does porting GCC to a new processor, to run on a free operating
system, without ever
=== asr (all)
cc -O -pipe -funroll-loops -march=pentium3 -Werror
-D_KERNEL -DKLD_MODULE -nostdinc -I-
-DHAVE_KERNEL_OPTION_HEADERS -include
/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/IBsec/opt_global.h -I. -I@
-I@/contrib/altq -I@/../include -finline-limit=8000
-fno-common -I/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/IBsec
--- Comment #4 from raj dot khem at gmail dot com 2006-04-10 07:38 ---
I am unable to compile glibc 2.3.6 with GCC 4.1 on all mips-linux architecture
because of this ICE.
--
raj dot khem at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-10 08:10 ---
Subject: Re: loop header should also be pulled
out of the inner loop too
On Mon, 9 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
(In reply to comment #14)
(In reply to comment #11)
I updated the patch for
I have configured gcc-4.1.0 with the following command:
configure --enable-threads --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-bootstrap
--with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
The system has GNU binutils 2.16 installed and when running gmake bootstrap
it compiles all 3 stage but fails during the compare stage with:
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 08:50
---
I have configured gcc-4.1.0 with the following command:
configure --enable-threads --enable-languages=c,c++ --enable-bootstrap
--with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld
Do not use --enable-bootstrap, it has not been
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 09:00 ---
We go via expand_builtin_memset which expands strlen at
len_rtx = expand_normal (len);
but then, expand via setmem fails, so we bail out
else if (!set_storage_via_setmem(dest_mem, len_rtx,
--- Comment #12 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-04-10
09:14 ---
Created an attachment (id=11235)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11235action=view)
proposed fix
This patch fixes the problem, but probably it is a more general optimization
fix than
--- Comment #18 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-10 10:24 ---
Subject: Re: loop header should also be pulled out of the inner loop too
actually, thinking about it again, it should suffice to teach
invariant_without_guard_p about invariant memory
--- Comment #4 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 11:34
---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase
(compile with g++ --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0):
=
struct A
{
~A();
};
struct B : A
{
B();
};
templateint struct C
{
--- Comment #2 from sagar dot indalkar at ge dot com 2006-04-10 11:45
---
Created an attachment (id=11236)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11236action=view)
Config log of gcc-4.0.3
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27076
--- Comment #3 from sagar dot indalkar at ge dot com 2006-04-10 11:46
---
Hi,
As per suggestion given, I have downloaded the gcc compiler version 4.0.3 and
uploaded to the box. When started configuring the using the command given
below.
../gcc-4.0.3/configure
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 11:54
---
Probably related to PR 26626.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 11:56
---
So it is indeed chicken and egg ;) load-PRE does not PRE the loads if the loop
is not in do-while form, and we won't hoist the loop header copies until the
loads are PREd. As to comment #13, if we are able to
--- Comment #2 from andy at trojanfoe dot servebeer dot com 2006-04-10
12:01 ---
If I configure without --enable-bootstrap I get this error quite early on
during the build:
config.status: creating libada-mk
config.status: creating auto-host.h
config.status: executing default commands
--- Comment #16 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 12:02 ---
Subject: Bug 24685
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 10 12:02:55 2006
New Revision: 112819
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112819
Log:
PR libgfortran/24685
* io/write.c
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 13:18 ---
Subject: Bug 27057
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 10 13:18:19 2006
New Revision: 112820
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112820
Log:
PR debug/27057
* dwarf2out.c (is_symbol_die):
--- Comment #2 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 13:21 ---
Subject: Bug 27057
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Apr 10 13:21:13 2006
New Revision: 112821
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112821
Log:
PR debug/27057
* dwarf2out.c (is_symbol_die):
The compiler segfaults on the following valid code snippet when invoked
with g++ --param ggc-min-expand=0 --param ggc-min-heapsize=0:
struct A
{
friend void foo() {}
friend void foo();
};
The error message on mainline is:
This is probably a duplicate of something that has been filed before,
but my cursory search failed to turn up any similar tickets.
GCJ rejects code that both Sun and Eclipse compilers accept.
Here's the test case:
| $ cat Reluctant.java
| public class Reluctant {
| private Reluctant
--- Comment #9 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 13:58
---
Confirmed. One can also use the following for t1.cc:
=
#include t.hh
void foo() {}
=
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #2 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-04-10
14:19 ---
The peculiar code turns out to be a result of the way in which I kludged my way
past the ICE. In sorting the out, I found that there is a double fault:
The implicit result version of the above
--- Comment #6 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-04-10
14:35 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
A little further reduced:
Actually that is a different bug.
Anyways the reduced testcase looks like:
FUNCTION reallocate_hnv(p,n,LEN)
--- Comment #3 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-04-10
14:48 ---
A patch (not regtested yet, nor tested on tonto) and testcase for this and
PR25597:
Index: gcc/fortran/trans-decl.c
===
---
gcc gives segmenation fault on the following code:
template class T
void T::foo() {
}
--
Summary: Semgmentation Fault on Template
Product: gcc
Version: 4.0.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: critical
Priority: P3
Component:
--- Comment #1 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:01
---
Confirmed.
We had a similar problem with template classes in PR18731.
--
reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:03
---
Btw, the ICE is a segfault on the 4.0 branch.
On the 4.1 branch and mainline we get:
bug.cc:2: internal compiler error: in is_ancestor, at cp/name-lookup.c:
--
--- Comment #14 from paul dot richard dot thomas at cea dot fr 2006-04-10
15:07 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
PR23634 does not affect this PR. So only two bugs left. I checked by
commenting out the lines effecting compiling.
I have submitted 2 PRs for tonto-2.2; PR25597 and
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:31
---
I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, int stridey2,
double *x, double *y)
{
for (int k=0; km; ++k)
for (int j=0; jn;
--- Comment #24 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-04-10 15:42 ---
I am sorry, but the patches on comments 17, 18, 21, and 22 are no good without
the
patch on comment 5, which seems, it was never commited into the repository...
Can you double check this. Thanks.
Edmar
--
edmar
--- Comment #14 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-10 15:53 ---
Subject: Re: IVs with the same evolution not eliminated
I wonder if it helps placing this between cunroll and ivopts...
void foo(int n, int m, int stridex, int stridey, int stridex2, int
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 15:55
---
config.status: creating libada-mk
config.status: creating auto-host.h
config.status: executing default commands
Bootstrapping the compiler
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/gcc-4.1.0/gcc'
gmake[1]: *** No
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:22 ---
Here is another testcase (which was reduced from the same source and gives a
similar error message but does not have inheritance in it):
templatetypename _Tp struct allocator
{
~allocator() throw() { }
};
struct
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:28 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 11813 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:28
---
*** Bug 27098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:30 ---
Please next time if you going to put the testcase inline don't put stuff in
front of the testcase so it can be easy to access.
Anyways confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:34 ---
Confirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:35 ---
It is a dup, Daniel asked me yesterday to close it as one but I did not get
around to it til today.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26626 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:35
---
*** Bug 27085 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 16:40 ---
That error should not effect compiling of GCC unless you need a fortran
compiler and then you need to read:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/
AND:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
People build all the time
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #5 from sagar dot indalkar at ge dot com 2006-04-10 16:49
---
Hi,
Thanks for quick response. I am not installing Fortran compiler, I am only
installing the gcc compiler. After your mail I have tried running the make
command. make command still giving the error. The error
--- Comment #2 from polite at itd dot nrl dot navy dot mil 2006-04-10
17:25 ---
I tried the same thing with gcc 4.1.0 and I got the same result.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26066
--- Comment #2 from vnasardinov at gmail dot com 2006-04-10 18:12 ---
Tom Fitzsimmons stopped complaining about my pipe-quoting technique
after I told him about M-x delete-rectangle a.k.a. C-x r d. Takes
about 5 seconds in Emacs to fix this up. One, if you type really fast :)
Thanks
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:12 ---
Well really more like:
int f(int *a)
{
int t = *a;
unsigned *b = (unsigned *)a;
int *c = (int*)b;
return *c + t;
}
Which should be the same as:
int f(int *a)
{
return *a * 2;
}
--
--- Comment #13 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2006-04-10 18:22 ---
Putting the size of pad back seems OK on IA64 in both ILP32 and LP64 modes. In
ILP32 mode I get:
The DTP
Size of p: 136
Size of pad: 200
Size of char *: 4
Size if int: 4
In LP64 mode, both on HP-UX and Linux, I get:
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:24 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Tom Fitzsimmons stopped complaining about my pipe-quoting technique
after I told him about M-x delete-rectangle a.k.a. C-x r d. Takes
about 5 seconds in Emacs to fix this up. One, if you
[ forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/361814 ]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp% cat test.c
typedef struct { int size; } gnutls_datum;
typedef struct gnutls_cert { gnutls_datum raw; } gnutls_cert;
typedef struct { } gnutls_privkey;
int _gnutls_log_level;
void _gnutls_log(void);
void
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:43 ---
Related to PR 26490.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Summary|ICE: tree check: expected
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 18:45 ---
This works with 4.2.0 20060409.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27103
--- Comment #3 from debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org 2006-04-10
18:53 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
This works with 4.2.0 20060409.
Hmm. I get the ICE with 4.2.0 20060407. Will try a newer one...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27103
All of the compiler versions are the same as in bug 27101.
Sun's compiler:
| $ javac UnwelcomeGuest.java
| UnwelcomeGuest.java:9: variable USER_ID might already have been assigned
| USER_ID = GUEST_USER_ID;
| ^
| 1 error
The Eclipse compiler:
| $ ecj
--- Comment #1 from vnasardinov at gmail dot com 2006-04-10 19:02 ---
Created an attachment (id=11237)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11237action=view)
the test case
This comes from http://www.javapuzzlers.com/java-puzzlers.zip with minor
modifications.
--
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:04 ---
And I already filed this once before too :).
Anyways this is a dup of bug 24835.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 24835 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:04 ---
*** Bug 27104 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from vnasardinov at gmail dot com 2006-04-10 19:15 ---
Thanks. It would help to have the words definite assignment
and/or definitely unassigned and/or
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/third_edition/html/defAssign.html
somewhere in the summary or comments, so people can
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:49 ---
Boooiinngg...
Or, is anyone working on this?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7625
--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 19:57 ---
GCC 3.4 did better, said the reporter in comment #0.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2006-04-10
20:17 ---
Subject: Re: gcc pessimized 64-bit % operator on hppa2.0
Boooiinngg...
Or, is anyone working on this?
I'm not. Note that the HP code is using 64-bit registers and instructions
in 32-bit
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 20:18 ---
The resulting code for -march=opteron:
test_bit:
.LFB2:
leal63(%rsi), %edx
testl %esi, %esi
movl%esi, %eax
cmovns %esi, %edx
sarl$31, %eax
shrl$26,
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 20:31 ---
This is what the i386 machine description has to say about BT and friends:
;; %%% bts, btr, btc, bt.
;; In general these instructions are *slow* when applied to memory,
;; since they enforce atomic operation. When
I tried the last (gcc-4.2-20060408) snapshot.
When I compile the preprocessed source t.ii the compiler segfaults.
/usr/local/gcc42h/bin/g++42h -O3 -ftree-loop-linear -S t.ii
g++42h -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.2-20060408/configure
--- Comment #1 from micis at gmx dot de 2006-04-10 20:33 ---
Created an attachment (id=11238)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11238action=view)
preprocessed source
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27105
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-10 20:49 ---
Yes, it is known that -ftree-loop-linear is buggy. There might already be a
dup of this bug too.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from andy at trojanfoe dot servebeer dot com 2006-04-10
23:18 ---
Thanks, I thought I had read that pretty well. Am I being stupid?
Andy
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27099
When revising libgfortran/io/io.h by itself, make does not recompile source
files that include io.h causing erroneous builds. To get files recompiled that
depend on io.h one must 'touch' the sourcefiles.
--
Summary: Make dependency on io/io.h broken
Product: gcc
--- Comment #25 from amodra at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-11 00:33 ---
Subject: Bug 26459
Author: amodra
Date: Tue Apr 11 00:33:29 2006
New Revision: 112843
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=112843
Log:
PR target/26459
* config/rs6000/e500-double.h
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
