Re: GCC build failure, h...@149166 on native

On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Dominique Dhumieres> wrote: In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2009-07/msg00038.html Arnaud Charlet wrote: Can someone please fix or disable these runs? They are getting very irritating. What I find e

Re: [PATCH, DARWIN] fix emutls exports in libgcc_s10.{4,5}.dylib

On Dec 10, 2008, at 3:24 PM, IainS wrote: Thanks Geoff, that's v. useful doc. On 10 Dec 2008, at 22:36, Geoff Keating wrote: On Dec 10, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 02:55:11PM +, IainS wrote: To use the 'unversioned set' impl

Re: [PATCH, DARWIN] fix emutls exports in libgcc_s10.{4,5}.dylib

On Dec 10, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 02:55:11PM +, IainS wrote: On 10 Dec 2008, at 14:43, Jack Howarth wrote: shipped by Apple with its OS releases. I think what you want to do make sure you are using the FSF libgcc's and not the system ones while hav

Re: __Unwind_GetIPInfo on Darwin 8.11

On 26/11/2008, at 4:16 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 01:22:35PM -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote: Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Iain, The use of the system libgcc simply won't work on Mac OS X 10.4. The missing __Unwind_GetIPInfo only exists in libgcc_s.10.

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)

On 26/10/2008, at 12:25 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: From: "Geoff Keating" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I found that simply building MPFR in a non-default location (configure --prefix && make) and then pointing GCC at it with --with-mpfr, as in the installation instructions,

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)

"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we > require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html > > I'd like to increase the "minimum" MPFR version to 2.3.0, (which ha

Re: Test gcc.c-torture/execute/align-3.c

On 11/07/2007, at 4:48 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: The test gcc.c-torture/execute/align-3.c is failing on most of my platforms, including IA64 HP-UX and Linux. The test consists of: void func(void) __attribute__((aligned(256))); void func(void) { } int main() { if (((long)func & 0xFF)

Re: RFC: Make dllimport/dllexport imply default visibility

On 03/07/2007, at 9:18 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: On 03/07/2007, at 7:37 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: Yes. __attribute__((visibility)) has consistent GNU semantics, and other features (eg. -fvisibility-ms-compat, __dllspec) match other compilers.

Re: ___divti3 and ___umodti3 missing on Darwin

On 05/08/2006, at 5:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: While testing the state of gfortran in gcc trunk at -m64 on MacOS X 10.4 I discovered a huge number of test failures (848 compared to 26 with -m32). Almost all of these failures appear to be due to two undefined symbols in libgfortran's s

Re: bootstrap failure on i686-pc-linux-gnu

On 17/04/2006, at 9:55 PM, Ben Elliston wrote: Hi Geoff I'm seeing a bootstrap failure on x86 Linux that looks to be due to your change (noted below): /home/bje/build/gcc-clean/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/bje/build/gcc-clean/./ gcc/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux- gnu

Re: [HELP] GCC 4.1 branch Ada status on powerpc-darwin?

or some hacking to config/darwin.h is needed. | | | Thanks. However, that's not sufficient because the tools fail to build too: I'm adding Geoff Keating to the CC, hoping that he'll both shout at me while explaining why this change to darwin.h is broken, and suggest a real fix.

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On 27/12/2005, at 3:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:20:44PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: I'm not sure what "just fine" definition you're using here. I don't think you can say it's been extensively tested, and I'm fairly sure I can

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On 27/12/2005, at 1:49 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 11:34:16PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: We've had Real Problems with this feature since it was introduced. I expect it'll take at least another two or three months before it settles down and starts to wo

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On 25/12/2005, at 8:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 07:36:16PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: That targetm.binds_local_p is no longer reliable is a serious bug. What's wrong with it? It should be answering 'false' for a weakref... It doesn

Re: weakref miscompiling libgfortran

On 25/12/2005, at 3:08 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: This test case, simplified from libgfortran, currently results in a tail call to pthread_mutex_unlock on i686 with -fpic, and is the cause of all the libgomp fortran failures on the branch. That this isn't seen on mainline is simply a consequ

Re: long double on ppc-darwin

On 18/12/2005, at 10:57 AM, Mike Stump wrote: On Dec 17, 2005, at 10:27 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Dec 18, 2005, at 1:13 AM, Geoff Keating wrote: Yes; to do this right, GCC's builtins need to know about the different names. If you're interested in fixing this, I can tell y

Re: long double on ppc-darwin

On 17/12/2005, at 5:56 PM, Mike Stump wrote: On Dec 17, 2005, at 6:08 AM, FX Coudert wrote: I'm trying to understand the gfortran failure large_real_kind_2.F90 on ppc-darwin7.9, which can be reduced to: $ cat large_real_kind_2.F90 real(kind=16) :: x real(8) :: y x = 1 y = x x =

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On 16/09/2005, at 5:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: What this means in practise, I think, is that the structure that represents a token, 'struct cpp_token' will grow from 16 bytes to 20 bytes, which makes it 2 cache lines rather than 1, and a subseq

Re: -b vs -bundle

On 01/08/2005, at 1:44 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Geoff, What I don't understand is how Apple's compiler can parse the -bundle as the first argument and the gnu gcc compiler can't. Shouldn't the same mechanism Apple uses to allow this to work be backportable into gnu gcc? No. There's lots of

Re: -b vs -bundle

On 31/07/2005, at 12:03 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: In compiling xplor-nih under the gcc/g++ of 4.1 branch instead of Apple's gcc/g++ 4.0 compilers from Xcode 2.1, I noticed that the gnu gcc compiler doesn't gracefully handle the -bundle flag. On Apple's compiler I can have a Makefile ent

Re: Pointers in comparison expressions

On 23/07/2005, at 6:12 PM, Paul Schlie wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: Mirco Lorenzon wrote: .., are comparisons in the following program legal code? No. ... void *a, *b; ... if (a < b) Because 'a' and 'b' are not part of the same array, the behaviour is undefined. Although I don'

Re: volatile semantics

On 22/07/2005, at 7:15 PM, Paul Schlie wrote: Geoffrey Keating writes: without 'volatile', then this object cannot be modified unknown to the implementation, even if someone also writes '(*(volatile int *)&i) = 1'. - merely means: treat the object being referenced as volatile qualif

Re: volatile semantics

On 22/07/2005, at 7:57 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: There is a "semantics of access". It is implementation-defined. I think you're thinking of "what constitutes an access", which is implementation-defined, but is not the same of the semantics of an access. The standard describes things

Re: volatile semantics

On 22/07/2005, at 4:33 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Although I can see that this is how you might think about the semantics of 'const' and 'volatile', I don't think they're an exact match for the model in the standard. In fact, I think you could ex

Re: updating libtool, etc.

On 30/06/2005, at 6:41 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:37:07PM -0700, Geoff Keating wrote: On 30/06/2005, at 6:26 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: Geoff Keating writes: Geoff> Does anyone mind if I update libtool to the latest released version, Geoff> 1.5.1

Re: updating libtool, etc.

On 30/06/2005, at 6:26 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: Geoff Keating writes: Geoff> Does anyone mind if I update libtool to the latest released version, Geoff> 1.5.18, and regenerate everything with automake 1.9.5? If everyone agrees to go forward with this Oh, I should have said:

updating libtool, etc.

Does anyone mind if I update libtool to the latest released version, 1.5.18, and regenerate everything with automake 1.9.5? smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC2

On 19/06/2005, at 3:45 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/cmath/ c99_classification_macros_c.cc | | appears to fail, with lots of complaints like | | c99_classification_macros_c.cc:49:21: error: macro "isgreaterequa

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

On 31/05/2005, at 6:34 AM, Paul Koning wrote: "Geoffrey" == Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Geoffrey> Paul Koning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: After some off-line exchanges with Dave Korn, it seems to me that part of the problem is that the documentation for -funsafe-math-opti

Re: GCC 4.0 RC2 Available

On 19/04/2005, at 6:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Geoffrey Keating writes: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: RC2 is available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.0-20050417/ As before, I'd very much appreciate it if people would test these bits on primary and secondary platforms,

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On 11/04/2005, at 11:23 PM, Ranjit Mathew wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: [...] which I see you've already committed a patch for, and a large number of Java failures. You can see full test results at [...] for 4.0.0-20050410. It might be

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On 12/04/2005, at 6:47 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Geoff Keating writes: On 12/04/2005, at 6:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Eric Botcazou writes: which I see you've already committed a patch for, and a large number of Java failures. <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-04/msg00814.html>

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On 12/04/2005, at 6:31 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Eric Botcazou writes: which I see you've already committed a patch for, and a large number of Java failures. for 4.0.0-20050410. Same failure as on Solaris. Andrew, do you have a Darwin mach

Re: PCH versus --enable-mapped-location

On 30/03/2005, at 10:36 PM, Per Bothner wrote: * Note that we compile the gch file as it were the main file - i.e. it has the MAIN_FILE_P property, and it is not included from any file. This means the restored line_table is slightly anomalous. One solution to this is when we generate the gch file

Re: Bootstrap error on powerpc-apple-darwin: stfiwx

On 27/03/2005, at 4:00 AM, Geert Bosch wrote: %cat LAST_UPDATED Sat Mar 26 21:31:28 EST 2005 Sun Mar 27 02:31:28 UTC 2005 stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/opt/gcc-head//powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0/bin/ -c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes

new cctools for powerpc-darwin7 required for HEAD

To be used conveniently on Panther, the recent stfiwx change in HEAD requires a later version of cctools than the 528.5 version that's currently on gcc.gnu.org. So, I've put cctools-576 on gcc.gnu.org. You can install it by clicking on the link below, or by running these commands: ftp ft