On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 3:03 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 5 branch is still open for regression and documentation fixes
> but it's about time to close the branch with a last release from it.
> Thus at the end of the next week I plan to do a RC for GCC 5.5 following
> with
FX,
No problem here x86_64-apple-darwin15 with a build using...
$ gcc-fsf-6 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-fsf-6
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc6/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0/6.1.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.5.0
Configured with: ../gcc-6.1.0/configure --prefix
Shouldn't there also be a back port of...
r235231 | bje | 2016-04-19 20:44:21 -0400 (Tue, 19 Apr 2016) | 2 lines
Attach PR number to most recent entry.
---
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>> On 11/16/2015 11:02 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> FYI, this posting has a bit more detail on the actual implementation...
>>>
>>> http://lists
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> Of course one unknown is whether PGI had already done any work
>> internally with the llvm middle-/back-end. If so, they might not be
>> starting from scratch.
>
>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 10:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>
>>> To put this in a (timeline) perspective:
>>>
>>> On the 18th of March, 2000, I announced A
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:14 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 12:58 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:04:06AM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
>
>>> See
>>>
>>>
>>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/llvm-to-get-fortran-compiler-that-targets-parallel-gpus-
Does anyone know which upstream boehm-gc release FSF gcc's copy was
last synchronized against? The system libunwinder.dylib (providing the
compatibility unwinder on darwin) has been recompiled, without source
changes, in OS X 10.11 El Capitan. This recompilation with the newer
Apple clang 7.0 co
What is the current schedule for the gcc 4.9.3 maintenance
release? Isn't it due this month?
Jack
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 March 2015 at 16:16, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
>> -Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3
>
> Are you sure? It doesn't exist f
Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
-Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3 but am
not having much luck Googling for the original submission in the
gcc-patches archives. According to
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, the initial c++-11 support
g
, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 22 March 2015 at 17:28, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Is this the policy going forward for the 6.0 release as well?
>
> Yes, as it says on that webpage.
>
>> If it is
>> being done just to avoid the stigma of a .0 release, it really smacks
>> o
Is this the policy going forward for the 6.0 release as well? If it is
being done just to avoid the stigma of a .0 release, it really smacks
of being too cute by half.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2015.03.21 at 12:11 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
>> gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of
>> maintenance rele
What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF
gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of
maintenance releases of 5.0. Will the next maintenance release be 5.1
or 5.0.1? I assume if it is 5.1, then after branching for release of
5.0, trunk will become 6
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:31:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:12:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> >> Is
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 03:12:22PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Is there a reason why the Serious Regressions tables, displayed by
>> the links in the 'Release Series and Status' section at
>> https:
Is there a reason why the Serious Regressions tables, displayed by
the links in the 'Release Series and Status' section at
https://gcc.gnu.org, no longer have a column for the priority
(importance) of each bug? We used to have that and it was quite nice
to be able to click on the priority colum
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 06:48:53PM -0500, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently contributed some fixes against GCC trunk, gcc-4_9-branch, and
> gcc-4_8-branch for which I need the requisite legal paperwork.
>
> However, I'd like to backport these particular fixes to the MacPorts
> Projec
Does anyone know if it is possible to have the toplevel configure.ac set...
--with-sysroot="`xcrun --show-sdk-path`"
for darwin13 or later? In particular, I am confused by the fact that the
toplevel
configure.ac doesn't define that particular configure option and just passes it
down to the lo
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:41:45AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 07/04/13 09:40, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Currently I am forced to manually patch fixincludes/fixinc.in to have the
>> DIR passed to
>> --with-sysroot honored during the bootstrap. Thanks in advance for any help
On Thu, Jul 04, 2013 at 10:41:45AM -0700, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 07/04/13 09:40, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Currently I am forced to manually patch fixincludes/fixinc.in to have the
>> DIR passed to
>> --with-sysroot honored during the bootstrap. Thanks in advance for any help
Bruce,
While bootstrapping darwin without the SDK (aka /usr/include) being present
in /,
I discovered the latent defect that fixincludes/fixinc.in doesn't honor the use
of the
--with-sysroot configure option and blindly uses the headers in /usr/include.
The code in fixincludes needs some mecha
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:35:53PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I am wondering if there are any alternatives to resorting to
> --with-native-system-header-dir= for building FSF gcc
> on darwin once the SDK is removed from the / and only resides in the buried
> SDK directory.
I am wondering if there are any alternatives to resorting to
--with-native-system-header-dir= for building FSF gcc
on darwin once the SDK is removed from the / and only resides in the buried SDK
directory. The FSF gcc bootstrap fails
in the absence of /usr/include in the fixincludes step unle
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 07:11:24PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> GCC 4.8.1 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.8.1 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8.1-RC-20130517
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated f
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 03:23:36PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 4.7 branch is ready for a release candidate of GCC 4.7.3
> which I will do tomorrow if no serious issue shows up until then.
> The branch is frozen now, all changes require release manager approval
> u
I have benchmarked both current gcc-4_7-branch and the release gcc 4.8.0
built with...
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-fsf-4.7
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/sw/lib/gcc4.7/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin12.3.0/4.7.3/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-apple-darwin12.3.0
Configured with: ../gcc-4.7-20130323
On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 07:51:20PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Vladimir, thanks for these numbers.
>
> ...
>>Therefore I had to use *Dragonegg* (a GCC plugin which uses LLVM
>>backend instead of GCC backend) for generation of Fortran benchmarks
>>by LLVM.
> ...
>>I believe such
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 03:23:06PM +0530, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
> Greetings!
>
> I would like to know if there are any TODO tasks that I can work on to
> get started with Graphite/GCC. I came across Tobias Grosser's post
> regarding Graphite development at:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite-
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:06:46PM +0100, Richard Günther wrote:
> Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> >Tobi,
> >Can you update the isl and cloog tarballs in the gcc infrastructure
> >directory
> >to the new isl 0.11.1 and cloog 0.18.0 releases from...
> >
> >ftp:
Tobi,
Can you update the isl and cloog tarballs in the gcc infrastructure
directory
to the new isl 0.11.1 and cloog 0.18.0 releases from...
ftp://ftp.linux.student.kuleuven.be/pub/people/skimo/isl//isl-0.11.1.tar.bz2
http://www.bastoul.net/cloog/pages/download/cloog-0.18.0.tar.gz
It looks li
Jan,
It appears that the gcc.dg/tree-prof/pr44777.c execution, -fprofile-generate
-D_PROFILE_GENERATE
testcase exposes inconsistent code generation on both x86_64 darwin and x86_64
linux at -m32.
The darwin linker developer looked at the crashing pr44777.exe executable that
this testcase
pro
On darwin, we have switched libasan in libsanitizer from mach_override to
mac function imposition. The new approach only works when libasan is a
dynamic shared library so we no longer should build the static library.
I was hoping that the simple change of...
Index: libsanitizer/configure.ac
===
Is libbacktrace currently functional in gcc trunk and is it expected
to function on darwin? While I could understand it not working on installed
binaries of FSF gcc that were stripped, I would think it should work for
make check in the build tree since all of the debug code should be present
in
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 05:05:05PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> The GCC 4.7 branch is now frozen for creating a first release candidate
> of the GCC 4.7.2 release.
>
> All changes need explicit release manager approval until the final
> release of GCC 4.7.2 which should happen roughly one week af
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:23:59PM +0100, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> libgcc_s and libgcj contain a hack which renames
> _Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction to
> _darwin10_Unwind_FindEnclosingFunction on darwin targets. It appears
> this was introduced to work around an issue in OS X 10.6 where the
> _Unwind
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:35:05PM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 09:34 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:14:17PM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2012 02:04 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 02:14:17PM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> On 02/23/2012 02:04 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> As I see in my x86_64/linux gcc build and for example recently in:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-02/msg02269.html
>>
>> === boehm-gc tests ===
>> Running
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:51:39AM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Hi Guys!
>
> Transactional Memory will be released in 4.7 so even if it is
> experimental, I hope it will come with only few bugs in it. Users could
> be enthusiastic to test it so it could be great to offer them a great
> exp
Are there plans to expand the number of targets for go in gcc 4.7?
In particular, PR46986 has had a proposed set of changes...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25196&action=diff
which should provide a starting point to identify the changes required
for go support on darwin.
I am trying to test the proposed merge of the transactional memory branch on
x86_64-apple-darwin11. Since the posted patches on gcc-patches seem to have
malformed sections, I used the merge patches from
http://quesejoda.com/redhat/tm-branch-diffs-from-trunk-at-180744/
instead (with the adjustm
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 04:40:22PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>I have had a report of i386 darwin10 failing to build gcc 4.4.6 in fink
> which I've reproduced
> myself. The failure looks quite odd...
>
> /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ./libiberty.a
> /sw/src/fink.build/r
I have had a report of i386 darwin10 failing to build gcc 4.4.6 in fink
which I've reproduced
myself. The failure looks quite odd...
/usr/bin/install -c -m 644 ./libiberty.a
/sw/src/fink.build/root-gcc44-4.4.6-1001/sw/lib/gcc4.4/lib/`/sw/src/fink.build/gcc44-4.4.6-1001/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgc
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth 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
Why aren't the BOOT_LDFLAGS settings honored outside of the gcc build
subdirectory?
On darwin, we are now setting...
BOOT_LDFLAGS += `case ${host} in *-*-darwin[1][1-9]*) echo -Wl,-no_pie ;; esac;`
in config/mh-darwin, and while the generated toplevel Makefile shows...
LDFLAGS="$(POS
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth 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
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 has all of those changes been committed to gcc
trunk?
If so, does anyone recall the specific commits? In particular, I am i
I am seeing some non-fatal warnings when doing a
profiledbootstrap/ltobootstap on
x86_64 darwin. These are of the form...
profiling:/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/graphite-poly.gcda:Invocation
mismatch - some data files may have been
removedprofiling:/sw/src/fink.build
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:30:44AM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Should I open a PR for them?
>
> What do they mean? It means that a linker script pattern matches something
> which can't be actually exported?
This error message may be coming from the following code...
http://www.open
Currently the bootstrap with --enable-build-with-cxx is failing because of
the following warnings treated as errors...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1000/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/g++
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc47-4.7.0-1000/darwin_objdir/./prev-gcc/
-B/sw/lib/gcc4.7/x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0/bi
There was some discussion earlier of defaulting FSF gcc to
--enable-build-with-cxx
for the stage2 compiler (with the stage 1 bootstrap retaining the use of the
system c compiler).
Is this change planned for gcc 4.7? On x86_64-apple-darwin10, I have had few
problems
routinely bootstrapping x86
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:52:37AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 16/03/2011 00:54, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>
> >>> FSF legal could solve th
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a blanket
>> dislaimer for all employees at the employer. Give them two options to
>> sign..
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:05:37PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>>> Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
>>> clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on s
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:03:44PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
> > clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
> > now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent t
Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cleared
the FSF copyright office. Worse yet, the clerk hasn't responsed to
emails in the past few months. No one s
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 02:08:47PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> I think you are overthinking this. What LTO needs to do is really
> simple: store byte sequences with names. Anything which lets you do
> that will work. You need to write it out in a way that the assembler
> will accept; sim
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:53:59AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> > So lto-object.c needs a rewrite to use only a single section for GNU_LTO
> > with subsections.
> > Unfortunately I can't find any documentation for using subsections in
Would someone please correct http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html by
deleting
the reference to darwin LTO support. Specifically we should just kill the
line...
LTO-support.
Darwin has benefited from ongoing work on LTO; support for this is now stable
and enabled by default.
It doesn't me
bject to an accidentally upgrade to 3.2.6 via Software
Update
if they are careless. It is probably better to disable the lto now rather than
suffer the complaints from end-users later. We can just revert...
2010-09-03 Jack Howarth
* configure.ac: Enable LTO by default on Darwin.
*
For clarity, the radar that I filed over which Apple has inflicted this
pain on us was...
--
Problem ID: 7920267possible linker bug exposed by LTO
28-Apr-2010 07:18 PM Jack Howarth:
The FSF gcc developers
Heh, so I guess it's my fault...
> I dug through radar and found the bug that triggered the change to as(1):
>
> possible assembler bug exposed by LTO
>
> The bug was written (ironically) by Jack Howarth! At the time 4/28/10),
> gcc's LTO was putting some LTO s
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 09:43:07PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:41 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 09:38:06PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> I agree it is probably better to re-code things, but that will be
> >>
Chris,
Could you clarify the following question from PR48086?
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > The easiest way to fix this is maybe to just have more than one GNU_LTO
> > segment. AFAIU the limit of 255 sections is a limit per segment. It is not
> > difficult to have mu
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 09:38:06PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:42:58PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >> (sorry Chris, I forgot the list)
> >>
> >> On Mar
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 08:42:58PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> (sorry Chris, I forgot the list)
>
> On Mar 13, 2011,@11:59 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> > Sorry, I actually mean 255 of course, because of the NO_SECT
> > sentinel. Here are the relevant bits from nlist.h. I'm not
> > sure how
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:47:22PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:55:02AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:59:33AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >
> >>> Yes, I agree that this is a better solution. This error was put into the
> >
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:55:02AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> >> Yes, I agree that this is a better solution. This error was put into the
> >> linker to detect some overflow conditions for part of the c
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
> > made to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The
> > design
> > of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o obje
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:19:13AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 13, 2011, at 8:38 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >>> With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
>
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 12:39:26PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was
> > made to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The
> > design
> > of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o obje
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 09:34:01PM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Mar 12, 2011, at 8:17 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was made
> > to
> > the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support
With release of Xcode 3.2.6/4.0 this week, an unfortunate change was made to
the darwin assembler which effectively breaks LTO support for darwin. The design
of LTO on darwin was based on the fact that mach-o object files tolerated
additional
sections as long as they didin't contain symbols. Wi
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 07:16:19AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
> * Dave Korn wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:28:15AM CET:
> > http://mad-scientist.net/make/autodep.html
> >
> > although note that where that recommends using "-include" (under
> > "Avoiding ``No rule to make
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:58:41AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 02/03/2011 03:23, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing
> > a bootstrap
> > failure which appears as...
>
> > make[4]: *** No rule to make
Is anyone else building java with lto-bootstrap? At r170606 I am seeing a
bootstrap
failure which appears as...
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CXX --mode=compile
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc46-4.6.0-1000/darwin_objdir
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> On 02/21/2011 04:42 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 06:32:30PM +0100, Prof. Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>>>
>>> We announce the availability of PPL 0.11.1, a new release of the Parma
&
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 06:32:30PM +0100, Prof. Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> We announce the availability of PPL 0.11.1, a new release of the Parma
> Polyhedra Library. This release includes several important bug fixes
> and performance improvements.
Roberto,
Have you had any reports of installa
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 06:21:17PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Nicola Pero wrote:
> > This patch is not me - it's by Iain Sandoe. :-)
>
> Thanks for chipping in and helping out. I'm excited at having a Objective-C
> compiler that works again on darwin.
>
> That said,
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 05:27:37PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13 February 2011 09:01, Csaba Raduly wrote:
> >
> > Any idea what could be the problem and how to fix it? Should I just
> > run a simple "make"?
>
> Questions about using or building gcc should be sent to
> gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org,
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 11:51:55AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:35 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > So, in c-common.c we have:
> >
> > targetm.init_builtins ();
> > build_common_builtin_nodes ();
> >
> > and in f95-1.c we have:
> >
> > build_common_builtin_nodes ();
> > t
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 09:40:41AM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 02/06/2011 08:12 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > what is the correct value is use for the enum entry of the ___divdc3
> > symbol? Is it END_BUILTINS-1 or END_BUILTINS-2? Thanks in advance for
> > any cla
Richard,
The ___divdc3 symbol on Snow Leopard in libSystem is less accurate
than that in FSF libgcc (PR42333). We plan to use DECLARE_LIBRARY_RENAMES
to provide an alternative symbol ___ieee_divdc3 to access the FSF libgcc
___divdc3 symbol when libSystem.dylib is linked first and
!flag_unsafe_m
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 11:08:09AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Sebastian,
> > Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks on
> > x86_64-apple-darwin10 using -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops under gcc
Sebastian,
Below are the results for the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks on
x86_64-apple-darwin10 using -O3 -ffast-math -funroll-loops under gcc
trunk at r169776, with -fgraphite-identity and with -fgraphite-identity
-ftree-loop-linear. I am surprised at the absence of any impact from
-ftree-loop-lin
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:49:16PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Pinski writes:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Jack Howarth
> > wrote:
> >> While doing bootstraps with...
> >>
> >> make -j 8 profiledbootstrap BOOT_CFLAGS=&quo
While doing bootstraps with...
make -j 8 profiledbootstrap BOOT_CFLAGS="-g -O3"
I noticed the absence of these flags being utilized in libdecnumber, libffi,
libgcc, etc.
This also appears to be limiting the coverage of the lto-bootstrap as well. Are
there any
plans to address in the near term
While doing builds of gcc trunk with --enable-build-with-cxx, the g++ compiler
triggers some warnings not seen with the stock build. In particular, I see...
g++ -c -g -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wcast-qual
-Wmissing-format-attribute -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros
-Wno-
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2...@12:40 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Sebastian,
> > It appears that the official tarballs are now
> > pos...@http://www.cloog.org/
> > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan o
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 09:04:06PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@6:52 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@3:03 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@2:05 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Jan 2, 2...@1:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> >
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 04:55:09PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > Sebastian,
> > It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
> > http://www.cloog.org/
> > for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16
Sebastian,
It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
http://www.cloog.org/
for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the
infrastructure
directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If so, the newer ppl 0.11 tarball should
be added
as well. If those files are
On x86_64-apple-darwin10, we see the warnings...
/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./gcc/xgcc -B/Users/howarth/darwin_objdir/./gcc/
-B/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/bin/
-B/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/lib/ -isystem
/Users/howarth/dist/x86_64-apple-darwin10.5.0/inclu
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:16:23PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 01:44:38PM -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >>
> > This was built against ppl 0.10.2 and cloog 0.15.10.
>
> Have you tried a bootstrap with neither ppl nor cloog ? I have yet to see
> their value and I
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 02:42:56PM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> A release candidate for GCC 4.5.2 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.2-RC-20101208
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 167585.
>
> I have so far bootstrapped and t
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 03:59:40PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> > where you have...
> >
> > void
> > __go_scanstacks (void (*scan) (unsigned char *, int64_t))
> >
> > in gccgo/libgo/runtime/go-go.c but...
> >
> &
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 01:23:14PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Actually, darwin doesn't use the boehm-gc/pthread_stop_world.c containing
> > the SIGRTMIN code. There is an entirely separate
> > boehm-gc/darwin_stop_world.c
> >
1 - 100 of 589 matches
Mail list logo
