* David Miller wrote on Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:26:03AM CEST:
>
> I used to be able to bootstrap gcc fully in minutes on average
> hardware 6 or so years ago. Those days are long gone. On my largest
> 64 cpu and 128 cpu boxes it takes forever these days.
>
> The libjava build is notoriously not
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java if
>> your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect it.
>
> I didn't make it completely clear, but my sugg
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fundamentally, our philosophy has been to catch errors *before* they get
>> into the repository. Sure one day of breaking the trunk isn't so bad, but
>> when it breaks it affects hundreds of dev
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
As I promised at the summit today, I have created the branch
gcc-in-cxx (I originally said gcc-in-c++, but I decided that it was
better to avoid possible meta-characters). The goal of this branch is
to develop a version of gcc which is compiled with C++. Here are my
pres
2008/6/20 Mark Mitchell:
>
>> Shall I commit this?
>
> Yes, please.
Thanks, Mark, I've committed it.
Volker, all the problems you noticed should be fixed, if you find any
other cases that seem wrong please let me know.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 05:21, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kaveh does have a point, Diego. The libjava build regularly finds middle-end
> problems that are not revealed by bootstrap testing.
So does Ada. This is why I have offered keep building it on my nightly testers.
IME, bugs
Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
used during GC. This is not a task for the faint-hearted.
That's one of
> IME, bugs found during libjava have been also triggered during
> libstdc++ and/or C. Though several folks at the summit mentioned that
> they had found bugs triggered only by libjava.
To me, as I said, this is the key issue: how often do we have such bugs?
On 6/21/08, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My point remains that libjava has become a serious problem in the
> development cycle of GCC. It takes roughly 3 hours on modern hardware
> to finish a GCC bootstrap (with -j2). A significant chunk of which is
> taken by libjava. If we could
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:27, NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you define as "modern hardware"?
Dell Precision 390 Core2 6600 @2.40Ghz. 4Gb RAM. Fedora 8.
Diego.
It takes about 50 minutes to bootstrap gcc with -j4 on a Core 2 Quad 2.66GHz
with default language, both 32bit and 64bit enabled. If I use
--enable-checking=assert,
it takes 25 minutes. Given the price of quad core today, there is no
reason no to
use quad core for gcc build.
H.J.
--
On Sat, Jun 2
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:39, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It takes about 50 minutes to bootstrap gcc with -j4 on a Core 2 Quad 2.66GHz
> with default language, both 32bit and 64bit enabled. If I use
> --enable-checking=assert,
> it takes 25 minutes. Given the price of quad core today, the
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Richard Kenner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Fundamentally, our philosophy has been to catch errors *before* they get
>> into the repository. Sure one day of breaking the trunk isn't so bad, but
>> when it breaks it affects hundreds of developers and it adds up.
From: Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:58:55 +0200
> Would that be compiles of object files that end up in libgcj (as opposed
> to the link, or stuff that depends on libgcj)? If yes, the lack of
> parallelism should be fixable.
It's the compilation of the object file
On 6/21/08, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:39, H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It takes about 50 minutes to bootstrap gcc with -j4 on a Core 2 Quad 2.66GHz
> > with default language, both 32bit and 64bit enabled. If I use
> > --enable-checking=assert,
>
On 6/10/08, Kai Tietz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While writing some testcases for the call abi switching for x86_64<->w64 I
> came to the point, that it would be may good to add the builtin types and
> functions for the different calling abi, too.
>
> For the target default abi it would b
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 08:10 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 05:21, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Kaveh does have a point, Diego. The libjava build regularly finds
> > middle-end
> > problems that are not revealed by bootstrap testing.
>
> So does Ada. This
> Without Ada (=all) bootstrap gets down to 1h54 at -j1 so Ada is 0h24, or
> 17% of =all, without Ada and Java (=c,c++,fortran,objc) it gets down to
> 1h17 at -j1 so java is 0h37 or 27% of =all.
Note that I recently made the ada build parallel on trunk, so these figures
should be very different on
> How is that irrelevant? If the argument is that libjava takes too
> long to build on modern hardware, and someone else has a different
> view of what is modern hardware where the original argument is
> invalid... what makes your view "correct" and HJ's view "incorrect"?
Quad cores are available
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 22:05 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > How is that irrelevant? If the argument is that libjava takes too
> > long to build on modern hardware, and someone else has a different
> > view of what is modern hardware where the original argument is
> > invalid... what makes your vie
NightStrike wrote on 21 June 2008 17:08:
> On 6/21/08, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:39, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> It takes about 50 minutes to bootstrap gcc with -j4 on a Core 2 Quad
>>> 2.66GHz with default language, both 32bit and 64bit enabled. If I use
>>> --enable-checking=as
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike wrote on 21 June 2008 17:08:
>
>> On 6/21/08, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 11:39, H.J. Lu wrote:
It takes about 50 minutes to bootstrap gcc with -j4 on a Core 2 Quad
2.66GHz with def
Ivan Levashew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor пишет:
>>
>> The other major TODO is to work out the details of using STL
>> containers with GC allocated objects. This means teaching gengtype
>> how to generate code to traverse STL containers, which would then be
>> used during GC.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> I'm curious at how many GCC developpers use non x86/_64 as their
> main development machine (and how many non x86/_64 core they use).
It's not just backend changes that require testing on non-x86
architectures. And it is very worthwhile to get testing
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 21:03 +0200, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > Without Ada (=all) bootstrap gets down to 1h54 at -j1 so Ada is 0h24, or
> > 17% of =all, without Ada and Java (=c,c++,fortran,objc) it gets down to
> > 1h17 at -j1 so java is 0h37 or 27% of =all.
>
> Note that I recently made the ada bu
> > An interesting question that I see as relevant here and for which I have no
> > data is: what percentage of the time does a patch cause an error *only*
> > in libjava? I think you have to weigh the cost of the build of that
> > library against the number of bugs that it finds.
>
> Happened t
26 matches
Mail list logo
