* Sarah Lynch:
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH Co. KG
Dudweiler Landstraße 99,
66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
This company appears to be affiliated with VDM Publishing, a company
which became notorious as a republisher of Wikipedia articles.
On 06/19/11 10:03 PM, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
Hi Christopher,
On 2011-06-18 14:39, C. Bergström wrote:
On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote:
Hi
We're in the process of considering
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:04:09PM +0700, C. Bergstr?m wrote:
ignore
I can't say I really care about Andy's alleged copyright infringement.
(My general point on matters like this is litigate or shut up. We're
all here to get work done and licensing (licensing trolls and I don't
mean
2011/6/19 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com:
In this case I serve the end user/community and not directly open source.
Why? Would it be good for Fortran if a F2K3 front-end was freely available
under a commercially friendly license? (This is a deeper question I'd love
feedback on)
From
Hi Christopher,
On 2011-06-18 14:39, C. Bergström wrote:
On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote:
Hi
We're in the process of considering contributing to gfortran for a
special project, but when
Hi all,
I'm sorry if I made this turn into a discussion of the benefits of Free
Software, just two short points ...
On 2011-06-19 18:58, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:04:09PM +0700, C. Bergstr?m wrote:
Andy started the project and at the time of the fork still was the
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:02 AM, Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
2011/6/19 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com:
In this case I serve the end user/community and not directly open source.
Why? Would it be good for Fortran if a F2K3 front-end was freely available
under a commercially
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
What is the current state of supporting hardened operating systems
that default to -fpie/-fPIE/-pie in gcc trunk? Do those releases still use
their own patches for gcc or
On Sunday 19 June 2011 20:30:17 Christopher Bergström wrote:
Nothing cloudy
1) Vet the codebase (stated this clearly)
2) Listen to what people say - (What needs to be worked on, are people
open to things like dual licensing, what's the future of Fortran,
etc..)
For whatever reason
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20110619 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20110619/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
For PCH what matters is not whether gcc defaults to generating PIE, but
whether gcc itself is compiled as a PIE. In general I believe that a
PIE gcc will not support PCH--it will
Hi GCC steering committee,
Apparently, there is no GCC maintainer for Linux/x86 platform. I have
been working on GCC, as well as binutils and C libraries, for Linux/x86
over 20 years. I ported GCC, binutils and the C library to Linux/x86. I
like to be appointed as maintainer for Linux/x86
On 06/19/2011 04:26 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jack Howarth howa...@bromo.med.uc.edu writes:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
For PCH what matters is not whether gcc defaults to generating PIE, but
whether gcc itself is compiled as a PIE. In general I
C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com writes:
1) What's wrong with commercial software?
I don't want to get into licensing fight, and I don't know anything
about the history of the Fortran frontend, but I do want to suggest a
correction to your wording. I'm not aware of any GCC contributor who
Dear RMs,
I'd like to have permission to backport the new -mflat support for SPARC from
the mainline to the 4.6 branch. I received the first requests to reinstate
the option last year, when Laurent (and some others) started to work on it,
but the initial patch was submitted too late in the 4.6
On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 21:32:25 +0200, Mikael Morin wrote:
I personally see no problem gfortran being reused in pathscale's compiler as
long as pathscale's contribution is libre (free). It can even improve code
quality to make gfortran backend independant (probably not much as the IR
generation
Hello All,
I need some help with setting the pipeline hazard recognizer (I am
working with gcc v4.5.1 for a private target).
A brief pipeline description of my target:
We have 2 functional units
1) For multiplication.
2) For All other instructions.
a) Multiply instructions are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49443
--- Comment #2 from Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com 2011-06-19 08:09:43 UTC
---
Both tests contain misaligned accesses and cannot be vectorized on targets that
have no misalignment support, like ia64. So, I think, the tests should just
fail:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49442
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||irar at il dot ibm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49457
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27460
Ira Rosen irar at il dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincenzo.innocente at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48256
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-06-19
14:02:27 UTC ---
Created attachment 24559
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24559
preprocessed test case
Several files in gsoc2010-fftw-neon ICE gcc-4.4 in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48863
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2011-06-19
16:26:25 UTC ---
Created attachment 24562
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24562
runtime test case
Here's a small runtime test case.
cat pr48863.c
/*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-06-19 15:48:41 UTC
---
Created attachment 24561
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24561
Before/After Examples
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49263
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-06-19 16:42:01 UTC
---
Thanks for having a look at it Kaz.
Yes, the fiddling with the combine pass is fragile. I've tried out your
peephole idea. It works in most cases but not all the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
--- Comment #2 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu 2011-06-19
15:39:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
(In reply to comment #0)
In the attached sample code, which is a reduced test case from the full
code,
the assignment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49468
--- Comment #1 from Oleg Endo oleg.e...@t-online.de 2011-06-19 15:29:45 UTC
---
Created attachment 24560
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24560
Proposed patch
The patch adds explicit handling of abs:SI and abs:DI to the machine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
---
-elf CFLAGS=-Os
CXXFLAGS=-Os --enable-languages=c,c++,lto --no-create --no-recursion
Thread model: single
gcc version 4.7.0 20110619 (experimental) (GCC)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #3 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19
17:39:22 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jun 19 17:39:19 2011
New Revision: 175189
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175189
Log:
2011-06-18 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #4 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19
17:48:15 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jun 19 17:48:13 2011
New Revision: 175190
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175190
Log:
PR target/49461
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #5 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19
17:51:04 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jun 19 17:51:02 2011
New Revision: 175191
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175191
Log:
2011-06-19 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Memory leak with assignment |[4.6/4.7 Regression] Memory
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #7 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19
17:54:26 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jun 19 17:54:24 2011
New Revision: 175192
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175192
Log:
PR target/49461
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
--- Comment #9 from mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19
18:07:54 UTC ---
Author: mrs
Date: Sun Jun 19 18:07:52 2011
New Revision: 175193
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175193
Log:
2011-06-19 Jack
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49461
m...@gcc.gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31400
Matt Arsenault arsenm2 at rpi dot edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||arsenm2 at rpi dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
--- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-06-19
18:45:09 UTC ---
In the first assignment b.U is allocated, in the second assignment it is not
freed, before being allocated again.
I don't think it should be freed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49466
--- Comment #6 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu 2011-06-19
18:57:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
In the first assignment b.U is allocated, in the second assignment it is not
freed, before being allocated again.
I don't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49417
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
--- Comment #19 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #32 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:05:22 UTC ---
Author: janus
Date: Sun Jun 19 21:05:18 2011
New Revision: 175194
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=175194
Log:
2011-06-19 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #33 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-19 21:16:06 UTC ---
Ok, the backport has landed on the 4.6 branch and should be just in time for
the 4.6.1 release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #34 from Rich Townsend townsend at astro dot wisc.edu 2011-06-19
21:18:47 UTC ---
Thanks, Janus -- you rock!
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:16 PM, janus at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48699
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49417
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49469
Summary: GCC fails to bootstrap when building with embedded
zlib on Mac OS X 10.6.7
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49074
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383
Alan Modra amodra at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49383
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-06-20
01:02:33 UTC ---
We've verified that one-line fix allows the bootstrap to complete successfully.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37089
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49205
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48138
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47635
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47601
--- Comment #35 from Kris kristopher.kuhlman at gmail dot com 2011-06-20
02:31:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #34)
Thanks, Janus -- you rock!
I concur. Thanks!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49470
Summary: no matching constructor for initialization errors not
detected in g++
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49470
--- Comment #1 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2011-06-20
03:12:23 UTC ---
This test case originates from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9627.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47080
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49465
Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48459
--- Comment #33 from Anitha Boyapati anitha.boyapati at atmel dot com
2011-06-20 05:00:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #32)
Fixed with:
2011-06-17 Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com
Backport from mainline
2011-03-22
Bootstrap and tested on linux/x86_64.
Ok for trunk?
David
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
Compiling the test case in the patch with -O2 -m32 without the fix,
the program will abort. The problem is a var decl whose address is
taken is not marked
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
this patch complettes the same body alias rework by removing the old same body
alias code and adding new representation. Same body aliases are now separate
function nodes that have IPA_REF_ALIAS reference to the node they are alias
of.
I am
Hi Eric,
This is the usual problem of volatile accesses not preserved under (heavy)
optimization. In Ada, we can put pragma Volatile on components of composite
types without putting it on the enclosing type itself,
if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
On Jun 15, 2011, at 6:33 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
* mh-darwin: Turn off -pie on darwin11 and later.
Also backported for gcc 4.5.4 and 4.6.1.
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:51 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:31 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:57 AM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue,
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't approve the configury changes and would like to defer
to target maintainers for the target specific changes. That said,
I'm not familiar enough with the area of the patch. But yes,
it's stage1 now - so if anyone
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:02 AM, Richard Henderson r...@twiddle.net wrote:
I couldn't find anything terribly tricky about the conversion.
The existing push_mult pattern would service thumb1 with just
a tweak or two to the memory predicate and the length.
The existing emit_multi_reg_push
On Jun 16, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
Currently, scan-dump variants treat a missing dump file as a failure and
append : dump file does not exist to the test message that would be
used with pass or fail. This patch treats it as unresolved instead,
using the same test message as for
On Jun 19, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Thanks. Can we get this on gcc 4.5.4 as well?
As commented in the PR, I'd have to see a confirmation that the bug exists in
gcc-4.5.x _and_ that the patch fixes it (with no regressions). That had been
previously stated for gcc-4.6.x, which is
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 02:40:59PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jun 19, 2011, at 12:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Thanks. Can we get this on gcc 4.5.4 as well?
As commented in the PR, I'd have to see a confirmation that the bug exists in
gcc-4.5.x _and_ that the patch fixes it (with no
Sparc is one of three users of a dwarf2out hook that I'd like to eliminate.
The other two users (arm and ia64) should be able to transition directly to
existing REG_CFA_* notes, and I will take care of those shortly. Sparc is
the only user of DW_CFA_GNU_window_save, which means we need a
if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
object of type T, are the optimizers allowed to remove the assignment O :=
O?
Good question, that I'm not really qualified to answer. Any language lawyer?
--
Eric Botcazou
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 13:35 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
This is a (possible) pre-requesite for the bitfield lowering patch,
taken from the old mem-ref branch. It introduces BIT_FIELD_EXPR
which can be used to do bitfield composition.
BIT_FIELD_EXPR a, b, C1, C2 is equivalent to computing
On Jun 19, 2011, at 4:24 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
if T is a non-volatile composite type with volatile components, and O is an
object of type T, are the optimizers allowed to remove the assignment O :=
O?
Good question, that I'm not really qualified to answer. Any language lawyer?
I'd like
79 matches
Mail list logo
