I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
internationally accepted standards? Its very counterproductive not to
use standards.
-John Burak
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I'd be curious to know the effect of removing the complexity field of
struct tree_exp. It should be possible to bootstrap C/C++/Java/Fortran
with a two line patch removing the field from tree.h, and the only
reference to it in tree.c (via the macro
icrashedtheinternet wrote:
I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
internationally accepted standards? Its very counterproductive not to
use
Hi,
I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and Itanium2 architecture. I want to use gcc
to emit some code before each ld and st instruction (I know that using
dynamic binary translator like PIN may be more suitable for this task,
but I am on the way of studying gcc and want to use it to achieve this
goal).
Also, I referred to some tutorials and articles in the net about
writing gcc front-end. And here are they:
1. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GNU_C_Compiler_Internals/Print_version
2. http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/GCC-Frontend-HOWTO.html (old)
3. http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7884
Tom Tromey wrote:
Marco == Marco Trudel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marco If it takes about 30 to 40min to build this html/parser.o and
Marco gnu-xml.o needs about 1 or 2 minutes but is - last time I took a look
Marco - a lot bigger than the html parser, shouldn't then be investigated
Marco why
Serdecznie zapraszamy na
Międzynarodową Polsko - Ukraińską konferencję na temat
Polska - Ukraina: sami budujemy przyszłość
XX Międzynarodowa konferencja
INWESTYCYJNE INTERESY W UKRAINIE
Aktualne informacje.Ostateczne wydarzenia z
I'm pleased to announce that GCC-4.0.4 has been released
on January 31, 2007.
This release is a minor release, containing bug fixes for
regressions relative to earlier releases. It is the final
release from the 4.0.x series, and the gcc-4_0-branch is
now closed.
GCC 4.0.4 is provided for
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, icrashedtheinternet wrote:
I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
internationally accepted
1) Modify the final() in final.c to emit some code before ld and st
before outputting the assembly.
2) Modify the MD file. Find the template which generate ld or st, and
add some code before ld and st.
On 2/3/07, 吴曦 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and Itanium2
Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Also, I referred to some tutorials and articles in the net about
writing gcc front-end. And here are they:
1. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GNU_C_Compiler_Internals/Print_version
2. http://www.faqs.org/docs/Linux-HOWTO/GCC-Frontend-HOWTO.html (old)
3.
--- Comment #4 from brian at dessent dot net 2007-02-03 09:08 ---
I never found out what was causing this but it hasn't happened in quite some
time so this can be closed out as INVALID.
--
brian at dessent dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
I don't see this with Linux on HPPA hardware. Steve Ellcey, can you try on
HPUX please?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29209
--- Comment #19 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:47 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Fixed.
Richi, do you think you can check whether PR28358 is really a duplicate of this
bug (as Andrew thinks) and should be closed.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28116
--- Comment #7 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:51 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Created an attachment (id=10360)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=10360action=view) [edit]
source file set for the 4.2 Bug Box
To reproduce,
Can you still reproduce this
I get the following with 4.2.0 20070131:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/libtexttools$ /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/bin/gcc -c windows.adb
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.2.0 20070131 (prerelease) (ia64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in
--- Comment #1 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:04 ---
Created an attachment (id=13000)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13000action=view)
ada testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686
--- Comment #2 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:05 ---
Also happens with 4.1:
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-22) (ia64-unknown-linux-gnu) GCC
error:|
| in expand_expr_addr_expr_1, at
The ia64 backend has various undocumented machine attributes. Unfortunately
they are used in code.
{ syscall_linkage, 0, 0, false, true, true, NULL },
{ model, 1, 1, true, false, false, ia64_handle_model_attribute },
{ version_id, 1, 1, true, false, false,
--- Comment #3 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 10:11 ---
I also see this with 4.2.0 20060721.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30686
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
GCC build
--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 10:43
---
I've tried a few times to look into it, but the .tar.bz2 code on your server is
just too large, and the example you posted here doesn't compile. Could you try
the following:
* upgrade to gfortran-4.2 or later
During Linux kernel development we ran into a few situations that showed
that indirect calls (through a function pointer) are significant slower on IA64
than on other platforms. Various ugly workarounds have been added to work
around that.
Some investigation shows the code gcc generates for
--- Comment #1 from ak at muc dot de 2007-02-03 11:22 ---
Here's a simple test case:
void f(int k, int (*fptr)(int i))
{
int i;
/* Do something useless */
for (i = 0; i 5; i++)
k *= 10;
fptr(k);
}
compiled with 4.3.0 20070203
I hope this is a new bug (I am not good at searching through bugzilla). I am
also not sure if this is according to standards, but as I undertand equivalence
is a harmless statement. It shouldn't change the lenght of the common block. I
am using gfortran -fdefault-integer-8 to compile gaussian-03
--- Comment #5 from sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it 2007-02-03 12:05 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
I'm testing a patch for this at the moment. The problem is you
have renamed SIZE to an interface. That is, this is leading to
the segfault:
interface size
module procedure
Right now, the files from the m4 directory don't follow
a sane nor uniform quoting style. What they do is also
undocumented.
This section of the code needs to be documented better, and
also needs some cleanup. Alternatively, a rewrite
would be in order.
--
Summary: Clean up m4
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch, rejects-valid
Known to fail|
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--
fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
Under Intel 386 and AMD x86-64 Options are listed several different
parameters one can give to -march, such as i386,i486,pentium,prescott,etc. For
AMD64 users the special options -m32 and -m64 specify whether to build for 32
or 64 bit environments. Aren't both these options redundant? If you're
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:13 ---
I cannot reproduce this with either current 4.1 branch head nor g++ (GCC) 4.1.2
20061115 (prerelease) (Debian 4.1.1-21).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28358
--- Comment #4 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 30660
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #13 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 29820
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #5 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 13:38 ---
Subject: Bug 30514
Author: pault
Date: Sat Feb 3 13:38:42 2007
New Revision: 121541
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121541
Log:
2007-02-03 Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #6 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
14:47 ---
Subject: Re: ICE optimizing passing long double to abstract method while in
other abstract's impl
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
I don't see this with Linux on
I want to use gcc's -E option to just have the preprocessor run on one of my
header files, to see if some macros expand correctly. GCC will do this happily
if the file's extension is .h, but not if it is .hpp. You can see this
trivially by typing in at the console:
$ touch blah.hpp
$ gcc -E
--- Comment #24 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 15:06 ---
Is the following supposed to fail given that Joseph said that it's valid C code
(but not valid in C++) and the header contains extern C:
(sid)976:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ~/src] cat t.h
#if defined(__cplusplus)
extern C {
#endif
--- Comment #25 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2007-02-03 15:13
---
Subject: Re: Illegal use of typedef to void
On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, tbm at cyrius dot com wrote:
Is the following supposed to fail given that Joseph said that it's valid C
code
(but not valid in C++) and the
--- Comment #1 from schwab at suse dot de 2007-02-03 15:15 ---
.hpp is not a recognized extension. If you want the file to be treated as a
C++ header precede it with `-xc++-header'.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30692
--- Comment #7 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-02-03
15:16 ---
Subject: Re: ICE optimizing passing long double to abstract method while in
other abstract's impl
--- Comment #5 from tbm at cyrius dot com 2007-02-03 09:45 ---
I don't see this with Linux on
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:28 ---
Is this now being looked into by Diego or Aldy?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30375
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:31 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.4
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:32 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #17 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:32 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:33 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:34 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:35 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:35 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:36 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:37 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:37 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:38 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:38 ---
Fixed in 4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:42 ---
won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:43 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:44 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:44 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:45 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:46 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:46 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:47 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:48 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:49 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher,
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:49
---
(In reply to comment #7)
Is this now being looked into by Diego or Aldy?
It wasn't. It is now.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:50 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 15:51 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.4. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:02 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:02 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:03 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:03 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:04 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:05 ---
Fixed in GCC0-4.1.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:05 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:06 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:07 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:08 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 ad higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:09 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjusting milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:09 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:10 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:10 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:11 ---
Apparently the address of lenstr gets shifted in the subroutine because of the
equivalence statement. Is this the right behavior?
This is what happens with my amd84:
$ /irun/bin/gfortran --version
GNU Fortran 95
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:11 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0 and higher
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:14 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Adjustine milestone.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:14 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2 and higher.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:15 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:15 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.0.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #6 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:16 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:16 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
This is strange:
$ cat minval.f90
program main
integer :: i
data i /z'7f80'/
real :: a(1)
a(1) = transfer(i,a(1)) ! a(1) contains +Inf
print *,a(1), minval(a)
if (a(1) minval(a)) print *,Strange...
end program main
$ gfortran minval.f90
$ ./a.out
+Infinity 3.4028235E+38
--- Comment #4 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:17 ---
Won't fix in GCC-4.0.x. Closing.
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.1
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #11 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #8 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:19 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.1.2
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from pault at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Brooks,
It wasn't fair to deposit this one on you so I have taken it back.
Cheers
Paul
--
pault at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Haven't seen any reports of wrong-code coming out of register renaming in a
while. Register renaming is enabled if loop unrolling / peeling is enabled. So
the test coverage of this pass is much better than it used
--- Comment #5 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-03 16:20 ---
Fixed in GCC-4.2.0
--
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
1 - 100 of 412 matches
Mail list logo
