On Feb 18, 2008 8:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:58:26AM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 11:44:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Or we can just duplicate the 2 inline asms for __GNUC__ 3
or what is the oldest GCC
If so, someone familiar with Darwin needs to provide (a tested) darwin specific
proc.c implementation which can be added to libgomp/config/darwin/proc.c
to replace the libgomp/config/posix/proc.c version.
Here is code that does so:
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/sysctl.h
int main()
Sunzir Deepur wrote:
On Feb 17, 2008 3:55 PM, Andrew Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sunzir Deepur wrote:
followup:
After a considerabale amount of time (e.g. 15 seconds), something is suddenly
freed, and the compilation completes successfully. afterwards trying
to recompile
the file completes
Hi all,
I'm interested in turning cc1plus into a shared library with an API on
top so that it's possible to:
-Programmatically parse compile a C++ file
-Parse a file, traverse the internal tree representation and get any C++
information that you are looking for
-Parse, make changes to the
Hello,
i have a problem and hope you could help me to transport the special
funktion hash_map to the OpenVMS system for a special software. This
special software was develop on a linux system with the g++ compiler. Now, i
would like to move this special software to OpenVMS. But OpenVMS has not
Info IT-BCSB wrote:
Hello,
i have a problem and hope you could help me to transport the special
funktion hash_map to the OpenVMS system for a special software. This
special software was develop on a linux system with the g++ compiler. Now, i
would like to move this special software to
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
The last time I tried this on ARM it didn't work because there were
ICEs and it might have been fixed by now.
However searching on bugzilla found me these .
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33009
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33642
In the latter
Hello All,
[I hope that the GCC mailing list is the good place for plugins related
question]
This is a technical newbie question regarding the plugin effort (or
even branch) of GCC.
I suppose that a plugin machinery for GCC offers, for the plugin to be
compiled, some conventions. In
Argiris == Argiris Kirtzidis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Argiris I'm interested in turning cc1plus into a shared library with
Argiris an API on top so that it's possible to:
Argiris The API should be easy to use not only from C but from other
Argiris languages that can use C libraries.
Argiris
PR target/34526 doesn't show up as a regression but it is in that
on powerpc-linux -O3 -mcpu=970 now includes -ftree-vectorize
and with the default, non-AltiVec ABI vector registers can be
clobbered by other functions in the same call tree. An example
of this is 176.gcc from SPEC CPU2000.
The
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
In other words, how can somebody compile a plugin for GCC on a system
without GCC build directory?
Only if you do not use any of the GCC internal data-structures...
which seems to narrow a lot the interest of GCC plugins. :)
Short answer would be: No.
Regartds
--
Weddington, Eric wrote:
Yes, because the one provided with MSYS is from texinfo 4.3, which
GCC finds too old. Apparently, MSYS-1.0.11 will come with texinfo
4.11, but it's still labeled technology preview for now.
I'm in the same boat here, msys-1.0.10, texinfo 4.3.
Is it the case that
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:29:22AM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
PR target/34526 doesn't show up as a regression but it is in that
on powerpc-linux -O3 -mcpu=970 now includes -ftree-vectorize
and with the default, non-AltiVec ABI vector registers can be
clobbered by other functions in the same
Jakub,
PPC970 and POWER6 support Altivec and that feature is enabled for
those processor by default. Now with inlining, auto-vectorization, and
copying via Altivec registers, GCC needs to save and restore the registers
correctly for overlapped use enabled implicitly. PPC64 Linux enables
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 15:25 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:29:22AM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
PR target/34526 doesn't show up as a regression but it is in that
on powerpc-linux -O3 -mcpu=970 now includes -ftree-vectorize
and with the default, non-AltiVec ABI vector
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:57:10PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:25:03PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What would break if in non-altivec ABI all Altivec registers are either
fixed (-mno-altivec) or call-used (-maltivec)?
I still suggest that the correct choice
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:25:03PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What would break if in non-altivec ABI all Altivec registers are either
fixed (-mno-altivec) or call-used (-maltivec)?
I still suggest that the correct choice is to use the same set of
call-used and call-saved registers without the
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 16:12 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:57:10PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:25:03PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What would break if in non-altivec ABI all Altivec registers are either
fixed (-mno-altivec) or
Perhaps Darwin doesn't define _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN
It is defined on Darwin9:
[ibook-dhum] f90/bug% grep _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN /usr/include/*
/usr/include/unistd.h:#define _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN 58
but apparently not for Darwin8.
Dominique
Yep, I'm having trouble with Darwin v
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 17:21 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
Janis Johnson writes:
Janis I have a patch, written since this thread started, that saves and
Janis restores AltiVec registers based on TARGET_ALTIVEC instead of
Janis TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI. It passes gcc.target/powerpc tests and
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20080218 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20080218/
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
Janis Johnson writes:
Janis I have a patch, written since this thread started, that saves and
Janis restores AltiVec registers based on TARGET_ALTIVEC instead of
Janis TARGET_ALTIVEC_ABI. It passes gcc.target/powerpc tests and 176.gcc
Janis with -O3 -maltivec -mabi=no-altivec. I'll post that
Hi!
As I've mentioned last week, I've created branches/gcc-4_3-branch.
The trunk is now 4.4 stage 1, the branch is open for regression bugfixes
and documentation fixes only, but additionally all checkings require
RM approval in addition to normal approval.
Before the release candidate is cut, it
Hi.
Why are constructors included twice in object code? This is with
GCC 4.3.0 20080214:
% cat t.cc
#include string
class T{
T(const std::string);
int foo();
int x;
};
T::T(const std::string) {x=2;}
int T::foo()
{
x=7;
}
% g++ -c -o t.o t.cc -fomit-frame-pointer -O
% nm -S -C t.o
Jakub Jelinek writes:
Jakub As I've mentioned last week, I've created branches/gcc-4_3-branch.
Jakub The trunk is now 4.4 stage 1, the branch is open for regression bugfixes
Jakub and documentation fixes only, but additionally all checkings require
I had hoped that you would not open
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 03:25:03PM -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What would break if in non-altivec ABI all Altivec registers are either
fixed (-mno-altivec) or call-used (-maltivec)?
I still suggest that the correct choice is to use the same set of
call-used and
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
As I've mentioned last week, I've created branches/gcc-4_3-branch.
The trunk is now 4.4 stage 1, the branch is open for regression bugfixes
Before we start getting 4.4-specific bugs or fixes, all open bugs with
4.3 in their summaries need it changing
* Jakub Jelinek wrote on Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 12:18:02AM CET:
PR35218 - I believe the latest patch worked for the tester,
so we now have a patch and just need an approval?
Yes, the patch is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00678.html
and the
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 18:58 -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
I misread Janis's latest patch that I approved.
The patch was suppose to enable -mabi=altivec when -maltivec is
enabled, not change the default ABI.
For other OSes, -mabi=altivec is the default, so -maltivec just
I misread Janis's latest patch that I approved.
The patch was suppose to enable -mabi=altivec when -maltivec is
enabled, not change the default ABI.
For other OSes, -mabi=altivec is the default, so -maltivec just
works and produces correct code. If a user enables
Janis Johnson wrote:
I discussed this on IRC with David Edelsohn and others. I plan to modify
the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00521.html to
set the default for the AltiVec ABI based on -maltivec; that patch had set
it by default. That patch will continue to re-enable
David Edelsohn wrote:
The patch was suppose to enable -mabi=altivec when -maltivec is
enabled, not change the default ABI.
OK.
If I understand correctly, then, this is going to be an ABI break for
32-bit Power GNU/Linux users using an AltiVec CPU (like 970). In
particular, if I
On Feb 18, 2008 6:18 PM, Jakub Jelinek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
As I've mentioned last week, I've created branches/gcc-4_3-branch.
The trunk is now 4.4 stage 1, the branch is open for regression bugfixes
and documentation fixes only, but additionally all checkings require
RM approval in
David Edelsohn wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark However, if I understand correct, some users have probably been
Mark implicitly using those options because they were using -mcpu=970, or
Mark otherwise specifying an AltiVec CPU. It seems desirable in the abstract
Mark that this code still
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Janis Johnson wrote:
There are lots of inconsistencies in passing generic vectors as arguments
and return values, and I'll leave those alone until the PowerPC ELF ABI
group decides what to do with them.
Perhaps you'd care to recommend what the semantics *ought* to be,
Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark So, if we wanted to make this interoperate better, we'd have to
Mark introduce dynamic stack alignment in every externally visible function,
Mark thereby penalizing the average user who isn't trying to support linking
Mark with legacy code. Right?
As
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:16:39PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
The Altivec ABI does change the stack alignment. This should not
create an incompatibility for old code, but new code may not receive the
stack properly aligned without additional dynamic alignment.
I thought so, too, but
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 08:16:39PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
The Altivec ABI does change the stack alignment. This should not
create an incompatibility for old code, but new code may not receive the
stack properly aligned without additional dynamic
Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are constructors included twice in object code?
This is required by the C++ ABI.
It is, in my opinion, a real bug that gcc does not simply merge
identical constructors. There are ABI issues with changing, in that
it can change the behaviour of
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are constructors included twice in object code?
This is required by the C++ ABI.
It is, in my opinion, a real bug that gcc does not simply merge
identical constructors.
I agree.
Up until now, I think all of the patches
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I believe that it would be possible to construct some test cases with
shared libraries built in the current regime, including only one
version of the constructor, which will behave strangely in the new
regime.
The ABI explicitly expects you to use multiple entry
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Samuel Tardieu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why are constructors included twice in object code?
This is required by the C++ ABI.
It is, in my opinion, a real bug that gcc does not simply merge
identical constructors.
I
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, H.J. Lu wrote:
Recent i386 use arbitrary register as GOT pointer only for leaf
function. When you call something, the GOT entry uses EBX too.
We use RBX for large PIC model. But I am with Michael here that I
don't
see reason why choice of register needs to be set in
--- Comment #148 from jv244 at cam dot ac dot uk 2008-02-18 08:10 ---
(In reply to comment #147)
(In reply to comment #146)
(In reply to comment #145)
current gfortran trunk seems to fail on CVS sources of CP2K with:
PR34946
Joost - can this be closed again?
Done, but I hope
I tried compiling my open source application with GCC. My application uses
OpenMP to make use of available CPU cores and run faster. I got an internal
compiler error from GCC, even though the same code compiles and runs fine
(using both cores) under Intel's ICC. It also compiles and runs fine with
--- Comment #9 from toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl 2008-02-18
08:32 ---
What will happen now? Will anyone send an interpretation request, which will
bring it up on the table again?
No, as it isn't *impossible* to implement it (with a hidden argument), an
interp won't stand
/ralf/local
--with-mpfr=/home/ralf/local
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20080218 (experimental) (GCC)
COLLECT_GCC_OPTIONS='-o' 'a' '-v' '-mtune=generic'
/home/ralf/gcc-test/bin/../libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.3.0/cc1
-quiet -v -iprefix
/home/ralf/gcc-test/bin/../lib/gcc/x86_64
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 09:41 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 35185 ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 09:41 ---
*** Bug 35247 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-02-18 09:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=15183)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15183action=view)
Patch to implement missed optimization.
2008-02-18 Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/33555
*
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 10:07 ---
libgcc_s goes into slibdir which is set as
AC_ARG_WITH(slibdir,
[ --with-slibdir=DIR shared libraries in DIR [[LIBDIR]]],
slibdir=$with_slibdir,
if test ${enable_version_specific_runtime_libs+set} = set; then
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from lakshmivaraganm at hcl dot in 2008-02-18 12:08 ---
This Crash on exit problem is there if we call exit(0) or call return 0.
If _exit(0) is used, there is no crash.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35179
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 15:23 ---
The testcase compiles with -fno-gcse. However, the result from the gcse1
pass using the 4.2 branch is similar to that with 4.3.
In the greg dump with 4.3, we have:
(insn 957 956 958 132
I seem to have found a problem where gcc-4.1.2 and gcc-4.2.3 miscompile Emacs'
src/intervals.c when using optimisation on solaris 8.
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: sparc-sun-solaris2.8
Configured with: ../configure --enable-languages=c,c++
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.3
I
--- Comment #2 from simon dot marshall at misys dot com 2008-02-18 18:06
---
I appreciate that Emacs is not the smallest of test cases and I apologise in
advance for this crime. Anything I can do to help determine the cause?
Are you familiar with src/intervals.c? If so, you
--- Comment #1 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 17:51
---
I have reproduced this with gcc-4.1.2 and gcc-4.2.3. I cannot reproduce it
using Sun Studio CC-5.7. I also could not reproduce it on RHEL-5 with its
gcc-4.1.2, nor could a couple of other people who tried it
--- Comment #3 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 18:21
---
Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with
src/intervals.c and I doubt if it is easy to split it up...
Is it possible to guess in what function things go awry?
But, to answer your
--- Comment #8 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-18 23:44 ---
Subject: Bug 34921
Author: hjl
Date: Mon Feb 18 23:43:23 2008
New Revision: 132396
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132396
Log:
gcc/
2008-02-18 Joey Ye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #7 from mckelvey at maskull dot com 2008-02-19 00:58 ---
How can GCC conclude that a call is going to be infrequent? Doesn't that
amount to predicting the future? Also, if an object is constructed, then it
will
be destroyed. So there is almost a 100% chance of calling the
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 01:21 ---
Subject: Bug 35189
Author: hjl
Date: Tue Feb 19 01:21:03 2008
New Revision: 132403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132403
Log:
gcc/
2008-02-18 H.J. Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR target/35189
--- Comment #9 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 01:30 ---
Fixed
--
pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Comment #8 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 01:29 ---
Subject: Bug 35071
Author: pbrook
Date: Tue Feb 19 01:29:09 2008
New Revision: 132404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132404
Log:
2008-02-19 Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #2 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-02-19 02:45
---
Confirmed. 4.2.2 produces unnecessary pushes and pops. 4.3.0 causes worse code
than 4.2.x and adds unnecessary moves. Adding const or pure function attributes
do not seem to help in 4.3.0.
--
eric dot
--- Comment #29 from eric dot weddington at atmel dot com 2008-02-19 02:47
---
Rask's patch (gcc-4.3-bug-11180-experimental.patch) causes worse code for the
test case in bug #32871, than without the patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11180
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 02:29 ---
Won't fix 4.2:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00715.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 02:20 ---
Paul,
notice that you fixed this *after* GCC 4.3 branched, so if your intention was
to fix it also for GCC 4.3, you would need to commit the fix to the branch (and
get a RM to approve it).
--
manu at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 03:23 ---
Subject: Bug 12618
Author: bje
Date: Tue Feb 19 03:23:15 2008
New Revision: 132405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132405
Log:
PR other/12618
* testsuite/Makefile.in (mostlyclean):
--- Comment #5 from bje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 04:12 ---
Fixed in trunk.
--
bje at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 04:28 ---
It appears this regressions was introduced in revision 130297.
--
danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from pbrook at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 04:33 ---
Subject: Bug 35071
Author: pbrook
Date: Tue Feb 19 04:32:15 2008
New Revision: 132408
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132408
Log:
2008-02-19 Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #4 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 04:37
---
Can this issue now be closed?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35088
--- Comment #1 from nightstrike at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 05:32 ---
Here is the email thread that started it all:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-02/msg00197.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35250
When gmp and mpfr are in the build tree of gcc, they will be automatically
configured and build. However, some of the options passed to configure are
incorrect according to the GMP manual:
[Begin quote] Note that the `--target' option is not appropriate for
GMP. It's for use when building
--- Comment #15 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-02-19 06:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 Regression] ICE in svn boost math toolkit
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-12 23:19
---
It looks like simply
--- Comment #10 from xinliangli at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 06:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
in the following code gcc choses the registers in such a way that it causes
itself an extra copy for every loop iteration and has to jump past the copy to
start the loop... it's probably
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 06:42 ---
gcc version 4.2.0 20060713 (experimental)
That is an old version of 4.2.0, can you try a new version of gcc 4.2.x.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35251
during compile, received the following output
bug.f: In function 'master.0.mnthweek':
bug.f:82: error: invalid operand to binary operator
__result_master.0.mnthweekD.911
bug.f:82: internal compiler error: verify_stmts failed
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if
--- Comment #5 from corsepiu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 06:34
---
(In reply to comment #4)
Can this issue now be closed?
IMO, yes. But I prefer to leave closing this PR to an m68k-specialist.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35088
--- Comment #2 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 07:24 ---
Subject: Bug 33555
Author: uros
Date: Tue Feb 19 07:23:30 2008
New Revision: 132414
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=132414
Log:
PR target/33555
* config/i386/i386.md
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-02-19 07:41 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-19 07:53 ---
fixed in mainline
--
chrbr at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|
86 matches
Mail list logo
