> yes; however, maybe it would be easier to wait till Richard finishes the
> work on not representing the overflow semantics in types (assuming that's
> going to happen say in a few weeks?), which should make the fix
> unnecessary,
Another thought - is this bug in the 4.4 branch? If so, a 4.4 fi
> yes; however, maybe it would be easier to wait till Richard finishes the
> work on not representing the overflow semantics in types (assuming that's
> going to happen say in a few weeks?), which should make the fix
> unnecessary,
Ah, ok. Can I ask for m32c to be on the test list for this work?
Hi,
> Can we somehow make this fix contingent on ports that have suitable
> integral modes?
yes; however, maybe it would be easier to wait till Richard finishes the
work on not representing the overflow semantics in types (assuming that's
going to happen say in a few weeks?), which should make th
From: "Ben Elliston"
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:56 -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Ah, but cake is only easy when someone else bakes it. :-)
While you're baking, Kaveh :-) could you see if your patch could also
fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34818
Thanks, Ben
I don't think
As of this fix (yes, I know it was some time ago - I've been busy),
the m32c-elf build fails building the target libiberty:
./cc1 -fpreprocessed regex.i -quiet -dumpbase regex.c -mcpu=m32cm \
-auxbase-strip regex.o -g -O2 -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wc++-compat \
-Wstrict-prototypes -pedantic -vers
H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 03:27:01PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> It does look like a Cygwin specific issue.
Can you tell me whether Linux treats COMMON as a separate section with
its
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:56 -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> Ah, but cake is only easy when someone else bakes it. :-)
While you're baking, Kaveh :-) could you see if your patch could also
fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34818
Thanks, Ben
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
Last but not least, GMP 4.3.0 was released a few hours after
PPL 0.10.1 with a change that is not backward compatible and
that affects the PPL. Summing up, I think the only solution
is to release PPL 0.10.2 during
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>>
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> However if you look in ppl-0.10.1/src/Makefile.am, you will find...
>>>
>>> # PPL release -version-info
>>> # 0.1 -
>>> #
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
However if you look in ppl-0.10.1/src/Makefile.am, you will find...
# PPL release -version-info
# 0.1 -
# 0.2 -
# 0.3 0:0:0
#
"Vincent R." writes:
> When implementing seh for arm(arm-wince-pe) we have a weird assembler
> message when
> declaring ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME. This macro calls the
> arm_seh_header_function and
> if we are trying to directly access a new field (has_seh) from cfun struct
> we
> get an assemble
bing wang writes:
> We are encounter a problem with low version of GCC in Red Hat
> Enterprise Linux 4.
> our software pass the compile on Fedora 6 with GCC 4 ,but fail the
> compiling in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 with GCC 3.XX.
> I just download a gcc4-4.1.1-53.EL4 Source RPM from
> ht
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 04:36:04PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Jack Howarth
>>> wrote:
[...]
It seems rather bad form to me that soversions are being changed
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:34 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 03:27:01PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
It does look like a Cygwin specific issue.
>>> Can you tell me whether Linux treats COMMON as a separate section with its
>>> own alignment, or otherwise ta
Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
[...]
It seems rather bad form to me that soversions are being changed in
minor dot releases of ppl. This has been one of my biggest fears
about cloog/ppl.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 03:27:01PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> It does look like a Cygwin specific issue.
>> Can you tell me whether Linux treats COMMON as a separate section with its
>> own alignment, or otherwise takes steps to ensure it has a base alignment
>> that
>> t
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 03:27:01PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > It does look like a Cygwin specific issue.
>
> Can you tell me whether Linux treats COMMON as a separate section with its
> own alignment, or otherwise takes steps to ensure it has a base alignment that
> the compiler can assume? Ot
Hi,
Sorry to cross-post but I don't have any answer on gcc-help.
When implementing seh for arm(arm-wince-pe) we have a weird assembler
message when
declaring ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME. This macro calls the
arm_seh_header_function and
if we are trying to directly access a new field (has_seh) from
H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Dave Korn
>> and it fails on the assignment "r = a;" because r is unaligned (0x404024); in
>> the assembly source, it is simply defined as
>>
>>.comm _r, 16 # 16
>>
>> so maybe the problem is in the Cygwin linker script? Is the COMMON
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>>> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
GCC 4.4.0 release candidate 1 is now available at:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.0-RC-20090414/
Please test the ta
H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> GCC 4.4.0 release candidate 1 is now available at:
>>>
>>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.0-RC-20090414/
>>>
>>> Please test the tarballs there and report any problems to Bugzilla. CC
>>>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> GCC 4.4.0 release candidate 1 is now available at:
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.0-RC-20090414/
>>
>> Please test the tarballs there and report any problems to Bugzilla. CC me
>> on the bugs if you believe
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> GCC 4.4.0 release candidate 1 is now available at:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4.0-RC-20090414/
>
> Please test the tarballs there and report any problems to Bugzilla. CC me
> on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from previous releases
> severe eno
Jack Howarth wrote:
>However if you look in ppl-0.10.1/src/Makefile.am, you will find...
>
> # PPL release -version-info
> # 0.1 -
> # 0.2 -
> # 0.3 0:0:0
> # 0.4
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 02:44:12PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > Roberto,
> > I am finding the following when I build my ppl-10.1
> > packaging in fink...
> >
> > Validating .deb dir /sw/src/fink.build/root-ppl-shlibs-0.10.1-1...
>
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Roberto,
> I am finding the following when I build my ppl-10.1
> packaging in fink...
>
> Validating .deb dir /sw/src/fink.build/root-ppl-shlibs-0.10.1-1...
> Error: Shlibs field says compatibility version for /sw/lib/libppl.7.dylib is
> 8
Roberto,
I am finding the following when I build my ppl-10.1
packaging in fink...
Validating .deb dir /sw/src/fink.build/root-ppl-shlibs-0.10.1-1...
Error: Shlibs field says compatibility version for /sw/lib/libppl.7.dylib is
8.0.0, but it is actually 9.0.0.
Error: package contains the shared
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Roberto Bagnara
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We are pleased to announce the availability of PPL 0.10.1, a new release
>>> of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
>>
>> It seems to build and test
Dear all:
We are encounter a problem with low version of GCC in Red Hat
Enterprise Linux 4.
our software pass the compile on Fedora 6 with GCC 4 ,but fail the
compiling in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 with GCC 3.XX.
I just download a gcc4-4.1.1-53.EL4 Source RPM from
http://rpmfind.net//linu
29 matches
Mail list logo
