After thinking about this some more, I believe I have some better text.
Previously I used the word "discouraged" to describe this practice. The
existing docs use the term "avoid." I believe what you want is
something more like the attached. Direct and clear, just like docs
should be.
If y
Am 05/16/2014 07:16 PM, schrieb Carlos O'Donell:
On 05/12/2014 11:13 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
After updating gcc's docs about inline asm, I'm trying to improve
some of the related sections. One that I feel has problems with
clarity is __attribute__ naked.
I have attached my proposed update. Co
Hi,
I've been tracking the latest releases of gcc since 4.7 or so (variously
interested in C++1y support, cilk and openmp).
One thing I've found hard to locate is information about planned inclusions for
future releases.
As much relies on unpredictable community contributions I don't expect
Hi,
Slightly related to my previous question about the roadmap. I have two
quite old targets based on (so far as I know) standard linux distributions.
Should they still be supported?
RHEL4 (kernel 2.6.9-55.ELsmp):
I was able to compile 4.8.1 successfully when it was released. 4.9.0 fails as
> [snip]
> /development/dev1/brucea/gcc4.7/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/../..
> /../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /home/brucea/gcc4 .9/lib/libmpfr.so:
> undefined reference to symbol '___tls_get_addr@@GLIBC_2.3'
> /development/dev1/brucea/gcc4.7/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/../.
On 20 May 2014 11:26, Bruce Adams wrote:
>
> RHEL4 (kernel 2.6.9-55.ELsmp):
>
>
> I was able to compile 4.8.1 successfully when it was released. 4.9.0 fails as
> below.
> RHEL4 is end of life (but not extended life).
>
> My feeling is this ought to work and is probably a regression I should report
On 20 May 2014 11:55, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> [snip]
>> /development/dev1/brucea/gcc4.7/bin/../lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/../..
>> /../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ld: /home/brucea/gcc4 .9/lib/libmpfr.so:
>> undefined reference to symbol '___tls_get_addr@@GLIBC_2.3'
>> /development/dev1/brucea/gcc
> > Yes, glibc 2.4 is required for GCC 4.9 because of this.
>
> Should that be noted at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#x-x-linux-gnu ?
Probably, unless someone knows how to work around it. We traced it to the
missing AS_NEEDED in /usr/lib/libc.so:
/* GNU ld script
Use the share
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 01:14:24PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > Yes, glibc 2.4 is required for GCC 4.9 because of this.
> >
> > Should that be noted at
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#x-x-linux-gnu ?
>
> Probably, unless someone knows how to work around it. We traced it to the
> But that should be generally needed only when linking with -Wl,-z,defs ,
> without it the linker shouldn't care.
Yet using a local libc.so with the missing AS_NEEDED is a (poor) workaround.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> To me predicate (and capture without expression or predicate)
>> differs from expression in that predicate is clearly a leaf of the
>> expression tree while we have to recurse into expres
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to university exams,
> which are up-to 27th May. I will start working from 28th on pattern
> matching with decision tree, and try to cover up for the first week. I
> am extr
Hi,
On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
> >
> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
> > @2)
> > (...)
>
> So you'd write
>
> (plus @0 :integer_zerop)
>
> instead of
>
> (plus @0 integer_zerop)
>
> ?
plus i
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to university exams,
>> which are up-to 27th May. I will start working from 28th on pattern
>> matching with de
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>Unfortunately I shall need to take this week off, due to university
>>> exams,
>>> which are up
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2014, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> > Syntaxwise I had this idea for adding generic predicates to expressions:
>> >
>> > (plus (minus @0 @1):predicate
>> > @2)
>> > (...)
>>
>> So you'd write
>>
>> (plus @0 :integer_
On 05/20/2014 03:02 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> After thinking about this some more, I believe I have some better
> text. Previously I used the word "discouraged" to describe this
> practice. The existing docs use the term "avoid." I believe what you
> want is something more like the attached. Dire
On 05/20/2014 03:59 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Am 05/16/2014 07:16 PM, schrieb Carlos O'Donell:
>> On 05/12/2014 11:13 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>>> After updating gcc's docs about inline asm, I'm trying to
>>> improve some of the related sections. One that I feel has
>>> problems with clarity i
Hello,
I'm trying to support -fsplit-stack in GNU Emacs. The most important problem is
that
GC uses conservative scanning of a C stack, so I need to iterate over stack
segments.
I'm doing this by using __splitstack_find, as described in
libgcc/generic-morestack.c;
but now I'm facing the weird
>>If you have a working compiler that is missing some functions
>>provided by libgcc, that should be sufficient to build libgcc.
Meaning that even if i am unable build libgcc to my new architecture,
I should be able to able to provide soft-fp support to the
architecture?
Btw i get the following er
On 05/19/2014 02:13 AM, shmeel gutl wrote:
> Are there hooks in gcc to deal with negative latencies? In other
> words, an architecture that permits an instruction to use a result
> from an instruction that will be issued later.
>
Could you explain more on *an example* what are you trying to achiev
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 11:09 +0100, Bruce Adams wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been tracking the latest releases of gcc since 4.7 or so (variously
> interested in C++1y support, cilk and openmp).
> One thing I've found hard to locate is information about planned inclusions
> for future releases.
> As mu
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of Basile Starynkevitch
> Sent: 20 May 2014 16:29
> To: Bruce Adams
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Roadmap for 4.9.1, 4.10.0 and onwards?
>
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 11:09 +0100, Bruce Adams
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Sheheryar Zahoor Qazi
wrote:
>>>If you have a working compiler that is missing some functions
>>>provided by libgcc, that should be sufficient to build libgcc.
> Meaning that even if i am unable build libgcc to my new architecture,
> I should be able to able to pro
- Original Message -
> From: Paulo Matos
> To: Basile Starynkevitch ; Bruce Adams
>
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 5:04 PM
> Subject: RE: Roadmap for 4.9.1, 4.10.0 and onwards?
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...
On 05/20/14 04:09, Bruce Adams wrote:
Hi, I've been tracking the latest releases of gcc since 4.7 or so
(variously interested in C++1y support, cilk and openmp). One thing
I've found hard to locate is information about planned inclusions for
future releases. As much relies on unpredictable commun
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
>
> I'm trying to support -fsplit-stack in GNU Emacs. The most important problem
> is that
> GC uses conservative scanning of a C stack, so I need to iterate over stack
> segments.
> I'm doing this by using __splitstack_find, as described in
> If I search for "ALL cilk 4.9" or "ALL cilk" it is still not obvious that the
> cilk branch
> was merged into main prior to release 4.9.0. Though that could be down to my
> unfamiliarity with more complex queries in bugzilla.
Our bugzilla is usually used for tracking bugs, not merging of featu
On 20-May-14 06:13 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
On 05/19/2014 02:13 AM, shmeel gutl wrote:
Are there hooks in gcc to deal with negative latencies? In other
words, an architecture that permits an instruction to use a result
from an instruction that will be issued later.
Could you explain more on
On 20/05/14 16:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:27:31PM +1000, Kugan wrote:
>> 1. Handling NOP_EXPR or CONVERT_EXPR that are in the IL because they
>> are required for type correctness. We have two cases here:
>>
>> A) Mode is smaller than word_mode. This is usually from wher
> On 05/20/14 04:09, Bruce Adams wrote:
> >Hi, I've been tracking the latest releases of gcc since 4.7 or so
> >(variously interested in C++1y support, cilk and openmp). One thing
> >I've found hard to locate is information about planned inclusions for
> >future releases. As much relies on unpredic
Hello All:
Simpson does the Live range shrinking and reduction of register pressure by
using the computation that are not load and store but the arithmetic
computation. The computation
where the operands and registers are live at the entry and exit of the basic
block but not touched inside the
On 05/20/2014 10:16 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
This is the call to __morestack_block_signals in morestack.S. It
should only be possible if __morestack_block_signals or something it
calls directly has a split stack. __morestack_block_signals has the
no_split_stack attribute, meaning that it sh
33 matches
Mail list logo
