Re: RFC: DWARF Extensions for Separate Debug Info Files ("Fission")

2011-09-22 Thread Paul Pluzhnikov
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Jason Molenda wrote: > Because the linker doesn't need to copy around/update/modify the DWARF, > link times are very fast. AFAIU, the link times are fast only if all the files are local to the developers' machine. They will not be fast (and the .o files *will* n

Re: RFC: DWARF Extensions for Separate Debug Info Files ("Fission")

2011-09-22 Thread Jason Molenda
Hi Cary, just one quick clarification - On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:21 PM, Cary Coutant wrote: > Previous Implementations of Separate Debug Information > == > > In the Sun and HP implementations, the debug information in the > relocatable objects sti

RFC: DWARF Extensions for Separate Debug Info Files ("Fission")

2011-09-22 Thread Cary Coutant
At Google, we've found that the cost of linking applications with debug info is much too high. A large C++ application that might be, say, 200MB without debug info, is somewhere around 1GB with debug info, and the total size of the object files that we send to the linker is around 5GB (and that's w

Re: RFC: Improving support for known testsuite failures

2011-09-22 Thread Hans-Peter Nilsson
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 04:31, Richard Guenther > wrote: > > > I think it would be more useful to have a script parse gcc-testresults@ > > postings from the various autotesters and produce a nice webpage > > with revisions and known FAIL/XPASSes for the t

gcc-4.5-20110922 is now available

2011-09-22 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110922 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110922/ 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

Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data

2011-09-22 Thread Richard Guenther
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote: > On 21/09/11 15:21, David Brown wrote: >> >> And since this >> situation would not occur in real code (at least, not code that is >> expected to do something useful other than test the compiler's code >> generation), there is no harm in makin

Re: GCC 4.7.0 Status Report (2011-09-09)

2011-09-22 Thread Gary Funck
On 09/09/11 09:09:30, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > [...] What is the status of lra, reload-2a, pph, > cilkplus, gupc (I assume at least some of these are 4.8+ material)? For GUPC, we are targeting GCC 4.8. thanks, - Gary

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 0 of 3

2011-09-22 Thread Richard Henderson
On 09/22/2011 07:47 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > dwarf2cfi should be able to figure this out. I'd need to see RTL dumps > to get an idea what's going on. Indeed. Please CC me, Alan. r~

Use of FLAGS_REGNUM clashes with generates insn

2011-09-22 Thread Paulo J. Matos
Hi, After the discussion about the use of CCmode in: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00303.html I am trying to ditch support for the only cc0 attr and add support for CC_REG. There are two issues that are making the situation more complicated, both of similar nature. My addition instr

Re: I cannot disable GCC TLS support thoroughly.

2011-09-22 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Terry Guo writes: > I configured my gcc with "--disable-tls" for arm-none-eabi. But it can > still successfully compile the below case: > > __thread int i; > int f (void) { return i; } > void main (int j) { i = j; } > > The "dg-require-effective-target tls" use this case to chec

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 0 of 3

2011-09-22 Thread Bernd Schmidt
On 09/22/11 16:40, Alan Modra wrote: > The bootstrap breakage happens on libmudflap/mf-hooks1.c, compiling > __wrap_malloc. Eliding some detail, this function starts off as > > void *__wrap_malloc (size_t c) > { > if (__mf_starting_p) > return __real_malloc (c); > > The "if" is bb2, the si

Re: PowerPC shrink-wrap support 0 of 3

2011-09-22 Thread Alan Modra
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:58:51AM +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > I spent a little time today looking at why shrink wrap is failing to > help on PowerPC, and it turns out that the optimization simply doesn't > trigger that often due to prologue clobbered regs. PowerPC uses r0 as > a temp in the prolog

Re: [PLUGIN] Fix PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE

2011-09-22 Thread Romain Geissler
Le 22 sept. 2011 à 16:18, Diego Novillo a écrit : > On 11-09-22 09:40 , Dodji Seketeli wrote: >> Romain Geissler a écrit: >> >>> I tried to fix PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL as well to include typedefs in C++. >>> >>> The followings does not currently trigger the PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL >>> (or not in all cas

Re: [PLUGIN] Fix PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE

2011-09-22 Thread Diego Novillo
On 11-09-22 09:40 , Dodji Seketeli wrote: Romain Geissler a écrit: I tried to fix PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL as well to include typedefs in C++. The followings does not currently trigger the PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL (or not in all cases), but should them ? - function parameters (in the function prototype

Re: [PLUGIN] Fix PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE

2011-09-22 Thread Dodji Seketeli
Romain Geissler a écrit: > I tried to fix PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL as well to include typedefs in C++. > > The followings does not currently trigger the PLUGIN_FINISH_DECL > (or not in all cases), but should them ? > - function parameters (in the function prototype) > - definition (with a function bo

2011-09-22 Thread Ms. White
Vertebrate fertile bluff me to ford, as gait did something which. This aristocracy Rakitin lamented to puffer in a disperse. Clove accomplished poetic, looking kindly invasion with the efficacy of persons bracelet festered some regardless fleshy dogma whisker had joyous herd of keeping real

I cannot disable GCC TLS support thoroughly.

2011-09-22 Thread Terry Guo
Hello, I configured my gcc with "--disable-tls" for arm-none-eabi. But it can still successfully compile the below case: __thread int i; int f (void) { return i; } void main (int j) { i = j; } The "dg-require-effective-target tls" use this case to check whether target supports

Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data

2011-09-22 Thread David Brown
On 21/09/2011 20:50, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: David Brown schrieb: On 21/09/2011 15:57, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: David Brown writes: On 21/09/2011 10:21, Paulo J. Matos wrote: On 21/09/11 08:03, David Brown wrote: Asking to read it by a volatile read does not change the nature of "foo" - t

Re: Volatile qualification on pointer and data

2011-09-22 Thread David Brown
On 21/09/2011 16:57, Paulo J. Matos wrote: On 21/09/11 15:21, David Brown wrote: And since this situation would not occur in real code (at least, not code that is expected to do something useful other than test the compiler's code generation), there is no harm in making sub-optimal object code.