> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:04:52 -0800
> From: Nathan Froyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:39AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Is it as simple as nobody having tested cross-gcc setups for
> > targets with dynamic linking, or are they incorrectly using the
> > wrong (the
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Cross-compiling from "one Linux/GNU" to another, different
arches. In my case, from x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu to
crisv32-axis-linux-gnu. Replace with arm, mips, ppc or yourarch
as you please; you should see the same thing. When you've
eventually added the required teln
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 02:47:39AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> Is it as simple as nobody having tested cross-gcc setups for
> targets with dynamic linking, or are they incorrectly using the
> wrong (the installed, not the newly compiled) libgcc_s.so.1?
>
> Or how did you do it? NFS mounts
Cross-compiling from "one Linux/GNU" to another, different
arches. In my case, from x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu to
crisv32-axis-linux-gnu. Replace with arm, mips, ppc or yourarch
as you please; you should see the same thing. When you've
eventually added the required telnet_exec support needed due t
> I don't know Ada to create a testcase. Can some Ada people help out?
It's not very different from C++. Start from the command line you posted and
remove code simultaneously from s-pack33.ads (roughly the .h file) and from
s-pack33.adb (roughly the .C file). Then put a breakpoint in decl.c wh
On Feb 11, 2008 3:13 PM, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My patch will only change alignment for long long scalars and arrays.
> > What alignments do Ada expect for long long on ia32? Does Ada expect
> > 8 byte alignments for struct/record?
>
> AFAICS your patch will downgrade the alig
> My patch will only change alignment for long long scalars and arrays.
> What alignments do Ada expect for long long on ia32? Does Ada expect
> 8 byte alignments for struct/record?
AFAICS your patch will downgrade the alignment of DImode, not just long long.
It looks like the Ada compiler expect
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080211 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080211/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 11 February 2008 16:53, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Is there someone out there who can walk me through
> the steps necessary to run them cross on a simulator?
> I will need to test an installed toolset and
> will have to be able to specify:
>
> + an extra object file to link with.
> + target CFLAGS
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will take care of the loop optimizer passes.
Awesome. Thanks!
Diego.
Hi,
> Everything else should work well enough for passes to be converted.
> If anyone has some free cycles and are willing to put up with various
> broken bits, would you be willing to help converting passes? There is
> a list of the passes that need conversion in the tuples wiki
> (http://gcc.gn
Jonathan Adamczewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> NightStrike wrote:
> > What is gcc's irc server?
> >
>
>
> #gcc on irc.oftc.net
Which is mentioned on http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki , by the way.
Ian
Hi,
I can now run the ACATS reasonably automatically
and test powerpc, sparc, and i386 RTEMS targets.
I would like to keep my momentum going and get
some results on the non-Ada tests.
Is there someone out there who can walk me through
the steps necessary to run them cross on a simulator?
I will
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1 - Pass cleanup. There have been rumblings about this, but I haven't
Yes, this is an area that is in desperate need of TLC. Your plan
looks good to me. We need to have a mechanism to de
On 11 Feb 2008, at 14:49, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
1 - Pass cleanup. There have been rumblings about this, but I
haven't
seen a lot of actual progress. We currently run 100's of passes all
the
time, and we don't reall
Duncan Sands wrote:
Hi,
4.2.3 only failed c380004, c761007, and c953002.
c380004 can be considered to be an expected failure.
It also fails on x86-linux, and this is normal because
the code produced by the front-end (gcc-4.2) can't possibly pass.
Thanks. I did a lot of testing o
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Andrew MacLeod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1 - Pass cleanup. There have been rumblings about this, but I haven't
> seen a lot of actual progress. We currently run 100's of passes all the
> time, and we don't really know how effective or necessary many of them
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
