gcc-4.6-20101030 is now available

2010-10-30 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20101030 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20101030/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk

Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

2010-10-30 Thread H.J. Lu
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > "H.J. Lu" writes: > >> [...]  By default, the in-tree zlib is used.  If you configure >> binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used.  [...] > > Can you summarize what modern platforms lack a system zlib, and what > justifi

Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

2010-10-30 Thread Frank Ch. Eigler
"H.J. Lu" writes: > [...] By default, the in-tree zlib is used. If you configure > binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used. [...] Can you summarize what modern platforms lack a system zlib, and what justifies using the proposed in-tree copy by default? - FChE

RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

2010-10-30 Thread H.J. Lu
Hi, Binutils can compress/decompress debug sections if zlib is available. I imported zlib from gcc source tree to binutils source tree. I changed binutils to use zlib unconditionally. By default, the in-tree zlib is used. If you configure binutis using --with-system-zlib, system zlib will be used.

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 30/10/2010 19:24, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/30/2010 11:37 AM, Dave Korn wrote: >>> Uh, really? I thought there were like a half-dozen lto sections... >> Which we iterate over just once, and record them all in a hash table from >> the per-section callback, unless I've missed something.

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Richard Henderson
On 10/30/2010 11:37 AM, Dave Korn wrote: >> Uh, really? I thought there were like a half-dozen lto sections... > > Which we iterate over just once, and record them all in a hash table from > the per-section callback, unless I've missed something. Oh, right. Nevermind then. r~

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 30/10/2010 18:57, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/30/2010 01:16 AM, Dave Korn wrote: >>> Do we really want to keep re-reading section data for every section >>> lookup we do? Can't we do this in objfile_open_read? >> It should only be necessary to do one section lookup per object file >> an

RE: A Framework for GCC Plug-ins

2010-10-30 Thread Grigori Fursin
Hi Justin, Thanks for the info - nice work! I forwarded your email to cTuning mailing list because maybe some colleagues who are/have been working on Interactive Compilation Interface will be interested in this work too ... Cheers, Grigori -Original Message- From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.or

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Richard Henderson
On 10/30/2010 01:16 AM, Dave Korn wrote: >> Do we really want to keep re-reading section data for every section >> lookup we do? Can't we do this in objfile_open_read? > > It should only be necessary to do one section lookup per object file anyway. > Keep extra data hanging around in memory in

[PATCH] Enable linker plugin for windows [was Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend]

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 30/10/2010 11:44, Dave Korn wrote: > On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > >> This implements an object file reader/writer which does everything >> required by LTO and gccgo. The ELF code works. I have not tested the >> Mach-O and COFF code at all beyond compiling it; I hope that som

Re: TARGET_VALID_POINTER_MODE unused?

2010-10-30 Thread Paul Koning
On Oct 29, 2010, at 5:48 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> I see documentation for TARGET_VALID_POINTER_MODE, and I see ports that >> define it... but I don't see any code that uses it. > > Ok, there are two issues it seems. First it is used in

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > * objfile-coff.c: New file. A few bugs have cropped up: > + if (namebuf[0] == '/') > + { > + size_t strindex; > + char *end; > + > + strindex = strtol (namebuf, &end, 10); Needs to be strtol (namebuf + 1,

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 29/10/2010 02:31, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > This implements an object file reader/writer which does everything > required by LTO and gccgo. The ELF code works. I have not tested the > Mach-O and COFF code at all beyond compiling it; I hope that somebody > else can test those targets and fix t

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Paolo Bonzini
On 10/30/2010 05:30 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: Will put if [ Go is enabled ]; then boot_language=yes fi in cp/config-lang.in work? It's a bit backwards, no? Paolo

Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend

2010-10-30 Thread Dave Korn
On 30/10/2010 01:23, Richard Henderson wrote: >> + if (!objfile_internal_read (objfile->descriptor, >> + objfile->offset + eor->shoff + shdr_size, >> + shdrs, >> + shdr_size * (shnum - 1), >> + &er