On 7 April 2010 23:52, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> Has anyone else seen this error from trunk?
>
> $ svn status
> svn: Error at entry 15 in entries file for 'gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn':
> svn: Bogus date
Then entries file for that directory is perhaps in g++.dg/.svn/. Have
you tried deleting all
AGENT ZA NEKRETNINE
Opis kompanije:
Agencija za promet nekretnina
Opis posla:
Agenciji za promet nekretnina ZIP EUROPE potrebni agenti prodaje sa ili bez
radnog iskustva.
Ponuda (bonusi, povlastice):
Rad je na uz fiksnu platnu i procenat uz stimulaciju u zavisnosti od ucinka
(50% agencijske prov
Hello,
I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made me wondering how much
work, and what exactly, remains to be done before bootstrapping with
WHOPR enabled i
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
> Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
> I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made me wondering how much
> work, and what e
> It would, however, be nice if you actually posted an answer to your
> (now solved) question. That way, any casual reader may learn something
> new.
>
Sorry for the unintentional offense, here comes the method:
for 2's complement binary number x31x30...x0,
unsigned value U = 2^(31)*x31 + 2^(30)*x3
Amker.Cheng wrote:
now think about two number U1, U2, the corresponding signed value are S1, S2.
S1 * S2 = (U1-2^32 *s1 ) * (U2-2^32 *s2)
= U1*U2 - 2^32*s2*U1 - 2^32*s1*U2 + 2^64*s1*s2
It's easy to prove that the lower 32 bit of S1*S2 is determined by the
lower part of U1*U2.
Mayb
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 06:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
> Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
> I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made me wondering how much
> work, and what exactly, remai
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 09:13:45AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Perhaps the easiest option is to remove the feature. WHOPR does not
> represent a lot of code over the basic LTO framework, so this should
> be relatively easy and non-intrusive.
>
> The first target I would shoot for, however,
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 06:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> > I've tried, unsuccessfully, bootstrapping C only with WHOPR enabled.
> > Not sure what happened, other than that my machine ran out of memory.
> > I guess this is kind-of expected, but it made m
Hi,
I am trying to build a toolchain for gcc-4.5-20100401 snapshot.
The linux toolchain was built successfully as expected.
However, on building the mingw toolchain, it generated the following error
while configuring gcc:-
=error
checki
On 11:05 Thu 08 Apr , Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 7 April 2010 23:52, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> > Has anyone else seen this error from trunk?
> >
> > $ svn status
> > svn: Error at entry 15 in entries file for 'gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/warn':
> > svn: Bogus date
>
> Then entries file for th
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 09:25, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> I am bit confused by this last sentence. Isn't it already the case in
> gcc 4.5 that using -flto both at compile and at link times (usually a
> trivial way to do that might be "make CC='gcc-4.5 -flto -O2'" or
> something similar) is prac
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
>
>> I was rewriting the Alpha sched_find_first_bit implementation for the
>> Linux Kernel, and in the process I think I've come across a gcc bug.
>
> [...]
>
>> Thanks. Let me know what I can
Bugzilla 41004 calls for a more -Os-friendly algorithm for BB Reorder,
and I'm hoping I can meet this challenge. But I need your help!
If you have any existing ideas or thoughts that could help me get
closer to a sensible heuristic sooner, then please post them to this
list.
In the mean time, he
Hello all,
I submit my proposal “Implementing a C Compiler for EFI Byte Code using GCC”.
Welcome your comments, if you are interested in the topic.
My proposal URL is
http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/show/google/gsoc2010/yi_hong/t127073387438
thanks
yi-hong
> It was. Unfortunately,work on it stopped last year and it is unlikely
> that I will be assigned to this again. I still have some personal
> interest on the feature, but given time restrictions, we should make
> contingency plans.
>
> Perhaps the easiest option is to remove the feature. WHOPR
> Well, I think this is independent.
> It makes a lot of sense to make profiling to work in a way so instrumentation
> happens at linktime with LTO and we can read stuff back. This is relatively
> easy to do: we need to rewrite profiling pass to work on SSA (that is easy and
> desirable anyway and
On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
> So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a mistake.
Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling
information if it is available. Much like we do with other optimization
decisions. They transparently beco
> On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a mistake.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling
> information if it is available. Much like we do with other optimization
> decisions. They tran
> > On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a
> > > mistake.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling
> > information if it is available. Much like we do with other optimization
> >
On 4/8/10 14:30 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>> On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
>>>
So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a
mistake.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling
>>> information if it is available. Much like w
> On 4/8/10 14:30 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>> On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>>
> So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a
> mistake.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profiling
> >>> information if it is availab
On 4/8/10 14:34 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> On 4/8/10 14:30 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
> On 4/8/10 14:10 , Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
>> So I think tying WHOPR and profile feedback too close together is a
>> mistake.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean that. My intent is to make whopr/lto use profil
Diego, thanks for brining LIPO into discussion.
There is a common misunderstanding of LIPO. It is not about
partitioning, but about extending single module compilation scope to
multiple/cross module. For instance for a build with a.c, b.c, c.c,
and d.c, LIPO does not partition them into
{a.c b.c}
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 14:53, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Diego, thanks for brining LIPO into discussion.
>
> There is a common misunderstanding of LIPO. It is not about
> partitioning, but about extending single module compilation scope to
> multiple/cross module. For instance for a build with a.
Hello Robert and all,
I have change the encoding from Big-5 to UTF-8
Is this in your means of wierd fonts??
I submit my proposal “Implementing a C Compiler for EFI Byte Code using GCC”.
Welcome your comments, if you are interested in the topic.
My proposal URL is
http://socghop.appspot.com/gs
On 07/04/2010 19:47, Tim Prince wrote:
> Will there be a notification if and when C++ run-time will be ready to
> test on secondary platforms, or will platforms like cygwin be struck
> from the secondary list?
What exactly are you talking about? Libstdc++-v3 builds just fine on Cygwin.
> Our
<>
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100408 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100408/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 4/8/2010 2:40 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 07/04/2010 19:47, Tim Prince wrote:
Will there be a notification if and when C++ run-time will be ready to
test on secondary platforms, or will platforms like cygwin be struck
from the secondary list?
What exactly are you talking about? Li
On 09/04/2010 01:23, Tim Prince wrote:
> No one answered questions about why libstdc++ configure started
> complaining about mis-match in style of wchar support a month ago.
I don't seem to have received it; can you post a link to the archive?
> Nor
> did I see anyone give any changes in conf
Although the dscussion regarding libstdc++-v3
is likely germaine to various developers who are
currently testing their changes and managing the
ports that they're responsible for, it seems that
this thread is venturing rather far from my
initial query.
I'm still wondering: Do GCC developers routin
On 09/04/2010 03:49, Gary Funck wrote:
> I'm still wondering: Do GCC developers routinely
> test their patches on MIPS, ARM, and S390 platforms
> (for example)? I signed up for the 'cfarm' and don't see
> an S390 there, and some of the secondary targets
> look like they might be really SLOW?
W
On 4/8/2010 6:24 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
Nor
did I see anyone give any changes in configure procedure. Giving it
another try at a new download today.
Well, nothing has changed, but then again I haven't seen anyone else
complaining about this, so there's probably some problem in your bu
> I'm still wondering: Do GCC developers routinely
> test their patches on MIPS, ARM, and S390 platforms
> (for example)? I signed up for the 'cfarm' and don't see
> an S390 there, and some of the secondary targets
> look like they might be really SLOW?
GCC developers test patches according to th
35 matches
Mail list logo
