Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then GCC (SOMEWHERE I CANT SEEM TO FIND THIS PART OF THE CODE) links
>> these objects by calling ld with /tmp/foo1.o and /tmp/foo2.o combining
>> these into: blah
>
> It's done in the driver, gcc.c. Look for link_command_sp
David,
I should probably point out that a lot of those
bug reports are mine and refer to the test failures
in the Darwin PPC at -m64. These are all recent bug
reports of which a quite a few may actually be issues
with cctools. So I wouldn't really use those a metric
A more valid concern may b
On 10/2/06, Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's not go down the road of including the target config file in
> more places which are not part of the compiler proper - which are
> not even inside the gcc directory!
I agree, but I also want to avoid duplicating the info in two plac
> Mike Stump writes:
Mike> On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
>> inconsistent.
Mike> Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst
Mike> types of problems that existed in the past? My recoll
Mike,
So everyone here sees these, as I sent you in a private
email, I think I've puzzled out what happened here. The objc
failures I have been seeing are an artifact of the make check
exp scripts when using...
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
which is what I norm
# fake us into system header land...
#if __STDC__ - 0 == 0
#error "STDC_0_IN_SYSTEM_HEADERS"
#endif
If it fails, then fixincludes knows we have stdc_0_in_system_headers.
That looks about right to me. KIASAP (as simple as possible,
no way is this coming out "simple". :) Cheers -Bruce
On Oct 2, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
diff -uNr gcc-4.2-20061002/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c
gcc-4.2-20061002.allocatable_unwind-dw2-fde-darwin/gcc/unwind-dw2-
fde-darwin.c
--- gcc-4.2-20061002/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c2006-10-01
23:03:13.0 0400
+++ gcc-4.2
On Oct 2, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
Now I currently need to generate an associated file for each of these
files as well.
Additionally, see -save-temps for additional hints. This avoids /tmp/
temp234.s as an intermediate file and generates ext_test.s instead.
Run with -v, and y
Brendon Costa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then GCC (SOMEWHERE I CANT SEEM TO FIND THIS PART OF THE CODE) links
> these objects by calling ld with /tmp/foo1.o and /tmp/foo2.o combining
> these into: blah
It's done in the driver, gcc.c. Look for link_command_spec.
Ian
Hi All,
I have been writing a small extension for GCC on and off for the last
year or two that performs static analysis of C++ exception
propagation. Basically I use the patched GCC to gather the information
I am after while it compiles files and then save that information to
files that are then s
On 02/10/2006, at 4:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
Well removing the portions of my previous patch which weren't
being used, the effective change that I had (which eliminated the
failures under MacOS X 10.4.8 with the -m64 objc testsuite) was...
diff -uNr gcc-4.2-20061002/gcc/unwin
Geoff,
Well removing the portions of my previous patch which weren't
being used, the effective change that I had (which eliminated the
failures under MacOS X 10.4.8 with the -m64 objc testsuite) was...
diff -uNr gcc-4.2-20061002/gcc/unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c
gcc-4.2-20061002.allocatable_u
On 02/10/2006, at 4:17 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
So should we have...
#ifdef __ppc__
fde = getsectdatafromheader (image->mh, "__DATA", "__eh_frame",
&sz);
#endif
#ifdef __ppc64__
fde = getsectdatafromheader_64 ((struct mach_header_64 *)image-
>mh, "__DATA", "__eh_frame", &sz
Geoff,
So should we have...
#ifdef __ppc__
fde = getsectdatafromheader (image->mh, "__DATA", "__eh_frame", &sz);
#endif
#ifdef __ppc64__
fde = getsectdatafromheader_64 ((struct mach_header_64 *)image->mh,
"__DATA", "__eh_frame", &sz);
#endif
or does the check for __DATA eh frames have
> Let's not go down the road of including the target config file in
> more places which are not part of the compiler proper - which are
> not even inside the gcc directory!
I agree, but I also want to avoid duplicating the info in two places,
it makes maintenance harder.
> I'd like to see th
On 02/10/2006, at 3:37 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Geoff,
I made one typo in my original proposed patch for
unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c. It should be...
Index: unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c
===
--- unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c (revision 117
Geoff,
I made one typo in my original proposed patch for
unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c. It should be...
Index: unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c
===
--- unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c (revision 117350)
+++ unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c (working copy)
Geoff and Mike,
These results are preliminary because they aren't from a complete
rebuild of gcc trunk, but from a previous bootstrap with the my proposed
fix to unwind-dw2-fde-darwin.c applied
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00018.html
however a...
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--tar
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I'm not sure if the following is exactly Joseph' point, but I'd like to know
> your opinion about it anyway: if you look to Comment #19 in the audit trail of
> PR 28408, I noticed that, due to the rule about signed zero (with default
> rounding):
> (
Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi Gaby
|
| > | > My question was a slightly different one. To me it is not clear
| > whether the | > standard allows the treatment of (r,0) as r in
| > complex operations. For | > example: is it allowed to handle
| > (r,0)*(x,y) as r*(x,y)?
| > | | I d
Hi Gaby
| > My question was a slightly different one. To me it is not clear whether the
| > standard allows the treatment of (r,0) as r in complex operations. For
| > example: is it allowed to handle (r,0)*(x,y) as r*(x,y)?
|
| I don't think so; at least, it might affect negative 0.
Hmm, how
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
|
| > On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
| > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
| > > > * the C99 and C++ standards say *nothing* about the details of compex
| > > > multiplication
The runtime of what, gcc or fixincludes? Whatever solution we come up
with, I'd like to avoid duplicating setting STDC_0_IN_SYSTEM_HEADERS,
i.e. bad idea to do it once in gcc and once in fixincludes. Better is
if we can include the target config file somehow.
Let's not go down the road of incl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there
i'm currently trying to set up a port for a simple RISC (actually it
is *some* version of DLX; the binutils-2.1x one).
Since i'm inexperienced with GCC (messed around with SUIF/Machine-SUIF
for some time) i have some questions. First of all
Matteo Fioroni wrote:
So, I ask you how can I get some docomuntation about C
preprocessor and how can I interface myself with it?
cyborgs... brrr...
Paolo.
Hi,
I need to write a program that can interface itself
with the C preprocessor.
On the Internet I've found a lot of documentation, but
all on the C compiler and other layer of Gcc (SAT
ecc.).
I have to use the preprocessor to retrieve the
inforfations about "#pragmas" in the C code.
I think that
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> > > * the C99 and C++ standards say *nothing* about the details of compex
> > > multiplication
> >
> > The C99 standard says that real operands aren't co
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> > * the C99 and C++ standards say *nothing* about the details of compex
> > multiplication
>
> The C99 standard says that real operands aren't converted to complex, but
> as I note in bug 24581, the
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> * the C99 and C++ standards say *nothing* about the details of compex
> multiplication
The C99 standard says that real operands aren't converted to complex, but
as I note in bug 24581, the compiler doesn't expect PLUS_EXPR and
MULT_EXPR to have argume
Hi Jan,
Hello,
I was recently bitten by gcc's handling of complex multiplication. My program
is in C++, but since std::complex uses C99's complex types, my questions
below apply to C as well.
I only want to say more explicitely that apparently both C and C++ are
affected, and in *i
On 02 October 2006 09:11, Come Lonfils wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do you know where I can have documentation for developer who begin with gcc.
> I want to know how work exactly gcc inside.
> Do you know some books or web documents which can help me?
>
> I need general documentation and more specially on h
Now it's time to give a big "thank you" to all persons involved,
ecpecially Rask Ingemann Lambertsen with his invaluable help.
As I started this project, I feared that I would never succeed, and
now ... the modified compiler is used about 3 month now, and DSLINUX
with this crude modification is
On Oct 2, 2006, at 1:10 AM, Come Lonfils wrote:
Do you know where I can have documentation for developer who begin
with gcc.
The standard answer works:
google("gcc documentation")
It is usually faster for you to ask google (i've never see it take
longer than around 500 ms to answer any q
Hello,
I was recently bitten by gcc's handling of complex multiplication. My program
is in C++, but since std::complex uses C99's complex types, my questions
below apply to C as well.
In my program, I have r*c, where r is an fp type and c a complex. In my
calculation I sometimes encoun
Hi,
Do you know where I can have documentation for developer who begin with gcc.
I want to know how work exactly gcc inside.
Do you know some books or web documents which can help me?
I need general documentation and more specially on how gcc compile objective-c
and objective-c++.
And Also about
Hi,
Do you know where I can have documentation for developer who begin with gcc.
I want to know how work exactly gcc inside.
Do you know some books or web documents which can help me?
I need general documentation and more specially on how gcc compile objective-c
and objective-c++.
And Also about
On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
inconsistent.
Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst
types of problems that existed in the past? My recollection is that
most of the things that Geoff's
37 matches
Mail list logo
