I have been unable to build recent gcc versions on my i386 (AMD 64x2)
running Fedora 7 although I have no problems building them on other,
similar hosts running F7 and older Fedora releases and on both Intel
and AMD machines.
I have suspected my environment because I have noticed for the first
tim
马骅 wrote:
I thought it may be a bug for gcc 4.1.2.
Please don't top-post.
On Nov 15, 2007 11:11 AM, Tim Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
马骅 wrote:
hi,
I try to build toolchains using buildroot. but when compile the
busybox, an internel compiler error show.
If you have questions about th
Revital1 Eres/Haifa/IBM wrote on 14/11/2007 18:46:14:
>
> >
> > When scheduling insn 58, we calculate a window of possible cycles
according
> > to already scheduled predecessors and successors. This window looks
like a
> > parallelogram in general rather than a rectangle: in the first cycle
there
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 13/11/2007 20:11:35:
> Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch adds documentation for fipa-cp and -fipa-matrix-reorg.
> >
> > 2007-11-12 Razya Ladelsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > * doc/invoke.texi (fipa-cp, fipa-matrix-reor
Hi,
I am trying to fix this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33962
The problem seems to that more_specialized_fn() doesn't seem to know
how to cope with deciding whether which function is more specialised
from two variadic functions.
I have narrowed the problem down to more_spec
Hello,
It's time for CRLibm developpers to step in this discussion.
We confirm that CRLibm is as fast as other portable libraries, or
faster, and that it keeps improving (some benchmarks below). When we are
slower, it is because we wanted cleaner code or smaller tables or we
tuned the code on
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:41:17AM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
> I wonder how to let GCC produce flat assembly, say, just like the .com
> file under the DOS, without function calls and complicate executable
> file headers, only instructions. How to modify the machine description
> file to achieve that? T
Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.
I don't believe this is a strong argument
> I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has
> always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a
> proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this.
I believe that any such compiler would violate the GPL. But I also believe
it's
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:34:38PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
> >>Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
> >
> >Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
> >to integrate pr
This is on i686-pc-linux-gnu:
$ ../../gcc/trunk/configure --prefix=$HOME --enable-languages=c,fortran
--enable-maintainer-mode && make bootstrap
...
build/genmodes -h > tmp-modes.h
/bin/sh: build/genmodes: No such file or directory
make[3]: *** [s-modes-h] Error 127
make[3]: Leaving directory `/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is, and has
> > always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate into a
> > proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I know that does this.
>
> I believe that any such co
Richard Kenner wrote:
Therefore, I think it's important for us to make it as
technically hard as possible for people to do such a linkage by readin and
writing tree or communicating as different libraries or DLLs. I'm very
much against any sort of "plug in" precisely for this reason.
That's t
> In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from
> tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
> into passes.c.
Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely "proprietary".
> So this seems to me to be a very weak argument against plugins.
Richard Kenner wrote:
No, not in that case, but I don't see that as the only case. Another
case would be somebody who wanted to keep an optimizer proprietary by
making it a plug-in. My view is that because of the linkage with the
GCC IR, it can't be proprietary in that case, but that's the har
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Kenner wrote:
>> I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
>> even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see
>> plugins as directly supporting that goal.
>
> I don't see that. Why is it t
> Limited time and steep learning curves. Typically, researchers are
> interested in rapid-prototyping to keep the paper mill going. Plug-ins
> offers a simple method for avoiding the latencies of repeated bootstrap
> cycles.
I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do
It appears that portions of the LTO information are emitted in the usual
debugging sections, rather, information that would already be present there
is shared. This is great for reducing the size of object files that
contain both
LTO info and debugging info, but means that LTO breaks if 'strip --s
Richard Kenner wrote:
I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do the
bootstrap to test the optimizer no matter how it connects to the rest
of the compiler. All you save is that you do a smaller link, but that
time is measured in seconds on modern machines.
No, you don'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > In fact, it's easy. You have to write some code to translate from
> > tree to your proprietary IR, and then you have to plug that code
> > into passes.c.
>
> Well first of all, that code becomes GPL so the IR isn't truely "proprietary".
I'm with yo
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> I think it's quite important for gcc's long-term health to permit and
> even encourage academic researchers and students to use it. And I see
> plugins as directly supporting that goal. Note that I don't see any
> problem with requiring (or attempting to require) that
Jason Merrill wrote:
> may_alias and target attributes are the problematic case. Most of these
> just get added to the TYPE_ATTRIBUTES list, and
> build_type_attribute_qual_variant creates a new TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT
> without copying the fields, which is why things break.
>
> A simple solution migh
Hi
There is again a problem i con not solve by my own. I tried to compile
LwIP and discovered following error.
tcp_in.c:1133: internal compiler error: in gen_reg_rtx, at emit-rtl.c:771
Please submit a full bug report,
A full output of all passes showed, that combine seems to make invalid
combina
> If a third party is willing to violate the GPL, the presence of a
> plug-in infrastructure will _not_ make their job significantly easier.
The issue isn't the ease in which it violates the GPL, but the ease in
which you can show it *is* a violation! If there's no plug-in and you
link directly
Michael_fogel wrote:
(ior:SI (subreg:SI (mem/s:QI (reg/f:SI 1250) [0
.flags+0 S1 A32]) 0)
See register_operand and general_operand in recog.c. (SUBREG (MEM)) is
accepted by register_operand if INSN_SCHEDULING is not defined, for
historical reasons. This is something that should be f
> > I don't follow. If you're developing an optimizer, you need to do the
> > bootstrap to test the optimizer no matter how it connects to the rest
> > of the compiler. All you save is that you do a smaller link, but that
> > time is measured in seconds on modern machines.
>
> No, you don't. Al
Hi,
I may need explain this problem more clearly.For a backend which runs as
coprocessor to a host processor, such as GPU, which incoporates large
numbers of ALUS and processes only arithmetic operations and some other
simple operations, runs in VLIW pattern to accelerate the host
processor. Say, t
Tom Browder wrote:
Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).
There is a config.log file in every directory that gets configured. It
looks like you attached the one from the top-level dir which is not
where the problem is occurring.
The "make -j3" makes the output hard to
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We can make it as technically hard as possible, but it's way too late
> > to make it technically hard. In fact, it's easy. You have to write
> > some code to translate from tree to your proprietary IR, and then you
> > have to plug that code into
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
>
> > > I don't believe this is a strong argument. My contention is,
> > > and has always been, that GCC is _already_ trivial to integrate
> > > into a proprietary compiler. There is at least one compiler I
> > > know th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes:
> > Limited time and steep learning curves. Typically, researchers are
> > interested in rapid-prototyping to keep the paper mill going. Plug-ins
> > offers a simple method for avoiding the latencies of repeated bootstrap
> > cycles.
>
> I don't fol
On Nov 15, 2007 6:24 PM, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Browder wrote:
> > Attached is a log of my build attempt (and the config.log).
...
> These lines in the output are suspect:
> /bin/sh: /usr/bin/true: Success
> I don't have a /usr/bin/true on my F7 machines. There is a /bin/true.
Richard Kenner wrote:
No, I mean for *testing* you need to do a bootstrap. I'm not talking
about the minimum actually needed to build.
Nope, you don't. If you are doing static analysis, for instance, you
don't care nor need to bootstrap GCC. You just need to load your module
every time a
Li Wang wrote:
and execute it. If I want to let GCC produce assembly for it, how should
I code the machine description file? Should I first let cc1 produce a
elf assembly for it, and then let binutils trunate it to a flat
assembly? It seems ugly hacking. Thanks.
I don't know what a .com file is
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:20:49PM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
> I may need explain this problem more clearly.
Yes, my earlier message directing you to gcc-help was because I thought
you didn't grasp what the compiler should do and what the linker should
do; sorry about that.
> For a backend which runs
Hi,
I wonder how to let GCC produce flat assembly, say, just like the .com
file under the DOS, without function calls and complicate executable
file headers, only instructions. How to modify the machine description
file to achieve that? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Li Wang
Thomas Koenig wrote:
build/genmodes -h > tmp-modes.h
/bin/sh: build/genmodes: No such file or directory
Does the file build/genmodes exist? If the file isn't there, then you
need to figure out what happened to it.
If the file is there, then this might mean that the interpreter for the
binary
Subject: Modulo operation in C for -ve values
The Modulo operation as specified in
http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~bdenckla/thesis/texts/htthe/node13.html says that
for a fraction like n/k which can be expressed as n/k = i + j/k the C division
and mod operation should yeild
n div k = i (integer part)
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:27:22AM +0530, Deepak Gaur wrote:
> The Modulo operation as specified in
> http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~bdenckla/thesis/texts/htthe/node13.html
This is not the C % operator. google "ISO/IEC 9899:1999" for a clue.
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Hi,
Thanks for your attention and response. I think I am still not very
accurate to describe what I want to do. I am too anxious to explain far
from clearly. Now permit me use a simple example, for the simple C
program below, compiled by cc1 targetting to x86 platform, the assembly
is as fo
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone could help me make sense of the
more_specialized_fn() function in pt.c (line 13281).
Specifically, I am trying to understand what each of the are:
tree decl1 = DECL_TEMPLATE_RESULT (pat1);
tree targs1 = make_tree_vec (DECL_NTPARMS (pat1));
tree tparms1 = DECL_
41 matches
Mail list logo
