Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110818 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110818/
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 Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Wolfgang S. Kechel wrote:
I ran into huge problems, so I installed binutils 2.21.1, make-3.82 and
some other stuff like flex, bison, less all in the latest versions and
compiled with native cc. Finally the build of the multilibs failed so I
decided to give GNU as/ld from bin
On 08/18/2011 08:16 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 06:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> gcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__gnu_mulsc3’:
>> gcc/libgcc2.c:1928:1: internal compiler error: in scan_trace, at
>> dwarf2cfi.c:2433
>> Please submit a full bug report,
>>
>> I assume that it is bec
> I picked up gcc-4.6.1 and startet a build process on a sparc-solaris10
> box with /opt/sfw and SolStudio 12.2 installed. I am using mpc-0.9,
> mpfr-3.0.1 and gmp-5.0.2 which I extracted in the gcc source directory
> and created a link as stated in the installation
> instruction/prerequisites. I a
On 08/17/2011 06:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> gcc/libgcc2.c: In function ‘__gnu_mulsc3’:
> gcc/libgcc2.c:1928:1: internal compiler error: in scan_trace, at
> dwarf2cfi.c:2433
> Please submit a full bug report,
>
> I assume that it is because the C6X has more than one delay slot ?
Ug. I knew
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-08/msg00131.html
>
> Are you going to install that patch? Or maybe you already installed it?
No, it isn't approved yet (in fact, it isn't even posted for approval).
Usually, patches that add new target macros, or new arguments to target
mac
Well done! That generated sensible code:
L 15,=V(PRINTF)
BALR 14,15
L 3,=F'32880'
AR3,13
MVC 0(10,3),0(2)
I still have the other knock-on effects from when I did this though:
C:\devel\gcc\gcc\config\i370>cvs diff i370.h
Index: i370.h
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Jed Davis wrote:
> One thing I'm not so sure about is accepting any SYMBOLIC_CONST as a
> legitimate address. That allows, for example, a symbol address cast
> to uintptr_t and added to (6ULL << 32), which will never fit. On the
> other hand, -fPIC allows offsets of up
Hello,
As GSOC is approching it's end, I would like to get precision of how
project's result should be made available. I open a quite general topic
however I guess it heavily depends of each project.
In particular, if I made some contributions to GCC and MELT, the main
part of my project is a plu
Paul Edwards wrote:
> Hi Ulrich. I put in the following debug:
>
> op0 = find_replacement (&XEXP (in, 0));
> op1 = find_replacement (&XEXP (in, 1));
>
> /* Since constraint checking is strict, commutativity won't be
> checked, so we need to do that here to avoid spurious failu
Hello,
I picked up gcc-4.6.1 and startet a build process on a sparc-solaris10
box with /opt/sfw and SolStudio 12.2 installed. I am using mpc-0.9,
mpfr-3.0.1 and gmp-5.0.2 which I extracted in the gcc source directory
and created a link as stated in the installation
instruction/prerequisites. I als
Hi Ulrich. I put in the following debug:
op0 = find_replacement (&XEXP (in, 0));
op1 = find_replacement (&XEXP (in, 1));
/* Since constraint checking is strict, commutativity won't be
checked, so we need to do that here to avoid spurious failure
if the add instruction is two-addr
On 18 August 2011 10:34, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
>> This isn't the first time the
On 18 August 2011 11:19, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 11:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include" from
> gthr-posix.h
On 08/18/2011 11:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include" from
gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
etc.) that implicit
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
>> This isn't the firs
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Revisions 176335 removed the traditional "#include " from
>> gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium,
>> etc.) that implicitly rely on it.
> This isn't the first time the libstdc++ headers were cleaned up, and
> each time
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Sergey Kutserey wrote:
> Hopefully you can add this mirror into public mirror list for GCC project.
Thanks, Sergey. This is how I added your mirror to our list.
Gerald
Index: mirrors.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/
And here is the web page patch...
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.809
diff -u -r1.809 index.html
--- index.html 2 Aug 2011 17:02:57 - 1.809
+++ index.html 18 Aug 2
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> It also means
>> that constants that are slightly more expensive than a register --
>> somewhere in the range [0, COSTS_N_INSNS (1)] -- end up seeming
>> cheaper than registers.
>
> Yes, perhaps some scale factor has to
On 16 August 2011 16:24, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Ramana Radhakrishnan writes:
>> I can't see how it is right to construct essentially 2 chains for the
>> same register that have overlapping live ranges without an intervening
>> conditional branch and since regrename sort of works inside a bb .
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:51 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
The gist of previous discussion is to use
Thanks for the feedback.
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 08/17/2011 07:52 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>>cost = rtx_cost (SET_SRC (set), SET, speed);
>>return cost> 0 ? cost : COSTS_N_INSNS (1);
>>
>> This ignores SET_DEST (the problem I'm trying to fix). It also means
>> that constants that
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> The gist of previous discussion is to use function overloading instead
>>> of exposing underlying implementa
24 matches
Mail list logo
