On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:50:49AM -0400, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Looking at the last SC announcement, it is probably easy to get the
> impression that SC is shrunk to David Edelsohn, may be Mark Mitchell
> and Gerald Pfeifer.
That would be a mistake. Different SC members play different role
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:10:52PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> There was no response from libc maintainers about changing the type of
> soft-fp compares into CMPtype. This type should be defined to mode(word)
> or at least we should be able to redefine it outside the soft-fp, in
> target depende
On Mon, Jun 11, 2007 at 06:06:14PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> This may be a stupid question, but I didn't find anything by googling
> gcc, g++, STL. So:
Please use gcc-help, so that someone can help you with your installation
problem. All g++'s from 3.0 on ship with a standard library that ha
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:13:16AM -0700, Lothar Werzinger wrote:
> when I build a coverage build of my software I get some undefined symbols
> like global constructors keyed to src_utility_Tree.cpp_90B986A5_564B8955
>
> I did some investigation and as you can see in the below test it only occurs
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 03:48:05PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/PR32102 is about the fact that -Wall
> -Wstrict-overflow is not the same as -Wstrict-overflow -Wall (i.e.,
> the order of the options matter). The reason is that -Wall sets
> warn_strict_overflow to 1 and -Wstri
On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 07:29:33AM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 02:06:21PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >> I have to look into bugzilla 3.0 migration first though. Bugzilla 3.0
> >> introduces a custom
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 02:04:16PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> >On 5/25/07, Thomas Koenig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>What about a keyword for bugs that
> >>
> >>- generate wrong code
> >>- affect a standard-conforming program
> >>- are silent (no error message)
> >>
>
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >1. Add a field to bugzilla for the SVN revision at which a particular
> >regression was introduced. Display that in bugzilla as a link to the
> >online SVN history browser so that clicking on a link takes us from the
> >PR straight to the checkin. This field value ought t
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 06:13:58PM +0200, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> >CCing the person who caused the regression is more appropriate. Assigning
> >bugs to them detracts others from fixing the bug.
>
> We already do that, and in lots of cases it doesn't work. CCing is not
> coercive enough,
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:35:53PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Is there a volunteer who would like to help prepare a regular list of
> P3-and-higher PRs, together with -- where known -- the name of the
> person responsible for the checkin which caused the regression? Or, is
> this something that
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:31:19AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And also: why not?
>
> I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
> improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
There seem to be quite a larg
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:00:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
> >transliterates the logic
> > of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
> >consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
> > functions.
>
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 07:06:47PM +0200, Thomas Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We have a large app with a lot of static libraries in it (and I mean a
> lot, about 20) and it compiles and links successfully. If I compile it
> without optimiztion turned on
> (-O2 or some more subtle with -O a
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:04:11PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> #3: sparc-sun-solaris2.8: failure in building jv-convert (while
> building libjava).
I think this is due to libiconv problems. It's a machine I don't control
where someone put a GNU libiconv in /usr/local, which tend
Here are some build/test results for the 4.2.0 release.
#1: i686-pc-linux-gnu on RHEL 3, booted with gcc 3.4.2
(all languages except Ada).
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg00713.html
(NOTE: booting with the RHEL-supplied compiler fails the
compare).
#2: x86_64-un
On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 12:02:57AM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> 2007/5/15, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ explanation of why gprof is as it is ]
> It's not well reasoned.
If you don't like my explanation, feel free to rewrite the software;
it is free softw
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 10:32:09PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> For the current trunk of GCC, thinking about
> the related thing of gprof and option -pg of GCC,
>
> it's important to output correctly the data with non-fatal accuracy,
> preferably 4 digits decimal instead of 2, e.g 0. ms instea
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 04:28:33PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>The tarballs for gcc 4.2.0 have been up on the gcc.gnu.org
> ftp site for a couple of days now.
Actually, they've been up for less than 24 hours. As a general
rule, the announcement isn't posted until 24 hours after the
tarballs g
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 02:12:56AM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > the ABOUT-NLS file in the top of the tree. It seems to be wildly out of
> > date
>
> Yes, it is from May 2003.
>
> You find the newest official ABOUT-NLS file in the gettext-0.16.1 di
This isn't that important, but ...
I just noticed the ABOUT-NLS file in the top of the tree. It seems to be
wildly out of date, listing many fewer translations than currently exist.
For example, in gcc/po we have be,ca,da,de,el,es,fr,ja,nl,ru,rw,sr,sv,
tr,zh_CN,and zh_TW. But according to ABOUT-
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 02:42:22AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't even think this qualifies as a bug. It's basically an
> > enhancement request, to have a clean way of supporting glibc in
> > an unusual place.
>
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:32:25AM -0400, Paul Jarc wrote:
> Sorry to bring this up so late, but I just tried building the last
> 4.2.0 prerelease and hit what seems to be a build bug:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31906
I don't even think this qualifies as a bug. It's basically a
On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 05:21:01PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote:
> On May 11, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >Bill Wendling wrote:
> >>This one was just filed against 4.2.0:
> >>
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31903
> >>
> >>It is causing LLVM (at least) to fail to build
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 12:05:49AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >PR 31797: An infinite loop in the compiler while building RTEMS.
> >Daniel, I see you've been commenting on this; are you working on the
> >fix? If so, do you have an ETA?
>
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 09:43:58PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> Andrea Callia D'Iddio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm writing a new compilation pass in gcc, and I'm working on GIMPLE
> >code. When gcc produce GIMPLE code, it creates new temporary
> >variables, in order to simplify
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 06:29:29PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> The engineer's definition of "available in May" is May 1.
> The marketer's definition of "available in May" is May 30.
Nope. The engineer's definition of "available in May" depends on whether
the engineer needs the item (then it's M
Here are some 4.2.0 RC2 test results (all languages except Ada).
First, i686-pc-linux-gnu on RHEL 3. NOTE: if this release is built
with the shipped compiler (3.2.3 based), we get a bootstrap comparison
failure; the same is true with the FSF 3.2.3. This report used
3.4.2 as the bootstrap compile
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > I'm certainly not trying to suggest that we run SPEC on every
> > architecture, and then make -O2 be the set of optimization options that
> > happens to do best there, however bizarre.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 01:21:20PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
On Sun, 2007-04-22 at 14:44 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > At work we use -O3 since it gives 5% performance gain against -O2.
> > profile-feedback has many flags and there is no overview of it in the
> > doc IIRC. Who will use it except GCC developpers? Who knows about your
> > advice?
On Sun
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:27:48PM -0400, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Ok can you tell me what directives does it provide to do what I
> have said . And I am not a beginner to gcc.
The answer is that gcc provides what the C standard specifies and nothing
more. You appear to want a more complica
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 12:58:39AM -0700, Ollie Wild wrote:
> >Related to this: have you guys ever considered to making the -On
> >flags dependent on the architecture?
>
> It came up in a few side conversations. As I understand it, RMS has
> decreed that the -On optimizations shall be architectur
> > 10) Eric Christopher reported that Tom Tromey (who was not present)
> > had suggested a new mascot for gcc: a unicorn with rainbows. This
> >was met with general approval, and Eric suggested that everybody
> >e-mail Tom with their comments. I personally would like to see
> >
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 09:07:07PM -0400, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Can some one tell me if gcc preprocessor can support in some way
> the following
> features
You are asking a beginner C programming question. gcc's preprocessor
does what standard C preprocessors do.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:32AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Sorry for butting in, but I just can't follow the reasoning here.
> Unless a function is only ever used once and is inlined at the single
> callsite, or unless the prolog and epilog are several times the size of
> the function body, isn
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:44:36PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The relevant code is in opts.c:
>
> if (optimize_size)
> {
> /* Inlining of very small functions usually reduces total size. */
> set_param_value ("max-inline-insns-single", 5);
> set_param_value ("max-inl
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:25:34AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html
>
> Despite the fact that this document is called "Itanium C++ ABI", g++ uses
> this approach on most platforms, including x86 (there is another
>
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:40:17PM +0100, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Is that any reference (paper, guide, whatever,) on how gcc is handling
> exceptions in intermediate code? Is it based on a known (published)
> method? Is it intuitive and explained somewhere?
See
http://www.codesour
> >> However, bundling them all up into big patches would probably run over the
> >> size limit for "small patches that don't require paperwork".
On 12 April 2007 16:31, Paul Brook wrote:
>> The size limit for non-copyrightable changes is accumulative. ie. it applies
>> the same whether change
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:05:36AM +0800, Mayank Kumar wrote:
> That information was really very helpful. I have been able to localize
the bug. The issue is in the assembler. When I create a object file
using the assembler(as test.s -o test.o), the contents of .rdata which
contains the jump
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 01:49:09PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We've working in linear address spaces.
> >How for segmented address spaces? You give me examples.
>
> Intel has had several popular processors with segmented addresses
> includi
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 09:47:07AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 4/9/07, J.C. Pizarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >#include
> >
> >void *__allocate_array_OptionA(size_t num, size_t size) { // 1st best
> > unsigned long long tmp = (unsigned long long)size * num;
> > if (tmp >= 0x800
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:44:26AM +1200, Ross Smith wrote:
> On Monday, 9 April 2007 13:09, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >
> > This code is bigger than Joe Buck's.
> >
> > Joe Buck's code: 10 instructions
> > Ross Ridge's code: 16 instructions
> > Ross Smith's code: 16 instructions
>
> Well, yes, but it
> > Florian Weimer writes:
> >>I don't think this check is correct. Consider num = 0x3334 and
> >>size = 6. It seems that the check is difficult to perform efficiently
> >>unless the architecture provides unsigned multiplication with overflow
> >>detection, or an instruction to implement __bu
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 07:41:59AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
> >A solution is using the -shared option to generate ".so" library.
>
> That does not solve things in environments like embedded
> environments where there are no shared libraries.
> >
> >Another future solutio
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 04:01:57PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ross Ridge) writes:
>
> | Joe Buck writes:
> | >If a check were to be implemented, the right thing to do would be to throw
> | >bad_alloc (for the default new) or return 0 (for the nothro
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> >I believe you're confused about the semantics.
> >The issue here is that the *size of object* requested can be
> >represented. That is independent of whether the machine has enough
> >memory or not. So, new_handler is a red herring
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 06:05:35P
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:51:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | One could argue that issuing some type of diagnostic (either at
> | compile time or run time) would be helpful for people that don't
> | remember to write correct code 100% of the time
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 05:23:42AM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> I've probed the profiling of p7zip-4.44 (c++, lzma,
> linux-2.6.20.5.tar as data).
>
> There is an absolute lack of profile timing information because of
> a lot of 0.00 and little bit of 0.01. There is not entry of >0.01 seconds.
Y
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> So the general concensus is that's it's not worth doing?
> Hypothetically, if I did it and it didn't make much difference, would
> it be worth submitting a patch? Or should I just give up before I
> start?
It might be worth doing. I thi
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:01AM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> >int i = 0;
> >int j = 2;
> >int n = CalculateSomething( j, &i );
> >int k = 3;
>
> I don't really understand, because the problem remains that if you
> break before int n... and do print n you get a value, whereas you
> should get an er
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Brian Ellis wrote:
> Now if there were actual function calls in the initialization, and no
> records were emitted, I would consider that to be a problem (haven't
> tested this at the moment though), however, static initializers like
> that could easily be
I wrote:
> >If adding scope attributes every time more than one variable is declared
> >adds to the already immense bulk of C++ debugging information, I'd
> >prefer to live with the bug myself.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> Out of interest, why? I haven't looked int
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 02:37:06PM +0100, Rob Quill wrote:
> My problem is thus: When using GDB do debug the follow bit of code:
>
> int i = 0;
> int j = 2;
> int k = 3;
>
> If I set a breakpoint at the 3rd line, before int k = 3; has been
> executed, and check if k is in scope, I find that it is
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 11:26:16PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 4/2/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect I'd want this for x86 darwin as well.
> >
> >Why emulate Windows compilers on non windows machine? That is
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 09:34:39PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/04/07, Ching, Jimen (US SSA) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Therefore, only -Wswitch is enabled by -Wall but neither of
> >> Wswitch-default or Wswitch-enum are.
> >
> >Note; a bunch of -W options has the sentence "This
> > Many of the improvements in c++ code generation were as a result of
> > tree-ssa, you only get with 4.x.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> It is however a bigger step change, and a correspondingly bigger risk.
> There are arguments in favour of not running with th
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
> Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
>
> >If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
> >obsolete release
> >(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:39:25PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> I noticed that you cleaned up C++ header dependencies in response to
> PR28080. This means that *a lot* of C++ code will no longer build.
Rather, programs that have never been built with any compiler other than
g++, but that assu
On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 01:23:45AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> In C, a pedwarn is a warning by default, an error with -pedantic-errors.
>
> In C++, a pedwarn is an error by default, a warning with -fpermissive.
OK, so the change is that pedwarns from the preprocessor were previously
warnings
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:11:21PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:01]:
> >> >Thanks for the explanation - this explains what I'm seeing. Is there
> >> >a good reason against ch
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:23:47PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 27/03/07, Martin Michlmayr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-03-27 14:08]:
> >> C++ preprocessor emits errors by default for nonconformant code,
> >> following the C++ frot-end defa
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:28:44PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > 2006-02-07 Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > config/sol26.h (CPP_SUBTARGET_SPEC): Accept -pthread.
> > doc/invoke.texi (SPARC options): Document -pthread.
>
> It's only an alias for the existing -pthreads, not worth mentionin
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:28:15PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
> >8-bit tree code (baseline):
> >
> >real0m51.987s
> >user0m41.283s
> >sys 0m0.420s
> >
> >subcodes (this patch):
> >
> >real0m53.168s
> >user0m41.297s
> >sys 0m0.4
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:22:37PM +0800, Mayank Kumar wrote:
> I am currently looking at interix gcc and found that -fPIC generated
> binaries crash although not all binaries crash. This has been known for
> quite some time since I found a lot of posts about it. I want to know if
> this issue has
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:16:42PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
>
> > As for what is best to do, I don't know. But I do know that complexity
> > is bad, and that GCC is very complex. You are absolutely right about
> > there being hard limits. There are trade-offs req
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 03:32:19PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Joe Buck writes:
>
> Joe> What worries me is that we can't afford to make -O0 run significantly
> Joe> slower than it does now. Cycle speeds are no longer increasing, we have
> Joe
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:34:22PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:49:55PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > Perhaps this ought to be looked at again with some seriousness.
>
> I think this is an idea whose time has either come, or will shortly.
> GCC's -O0 is much more
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 10:35:15AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 3/19/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This brings up a point: the build procedure doesn't work by default on
> >Debian-like amd64 distros, because they lack 32-bit support (which is
> >pr
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 09:27:25AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 03/17/07 14:28:
>
> > This is the project proposal that I am planning to submit to Google
> > Summer of Code 2007. It is based on previous work of Jeffrey Laws,
> > Diego Novillo and others. I hope someon
On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:52:26AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Steven Bosscher:
> >
> >> On 3/18/07, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> I don't need the 32-bit libraries, so disabling their compilation
> >>> would be fine. --enable
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:48:12PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> At one point I considered trying a search to see which files get
> miscompiled, by combining stage1 object files from a run with 3.2.3 and
> 3.4.2 and trying to do the rest of the bootstrap with that, then varying
> which .
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 05:30:48PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
> >> For what it's worth, I bootstrapped on a few different GNU/Linux
> >> systems with different kernels and base compilers. I only saw
> >> bootstrap comparison failures
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:11:29PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > The GCC 4.2.0 RC1 build has failed (on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) with:
> > >
> > > Comparing stages 2 and 3
> > > Bootstrap
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:47:57AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > It's not punishing the testcase; it's recognising that we have a bug
> > tracking system to track regressions and having "expected unexpected
> > FAILs" is helpful neither to users wishing to know if their compiler built
> > a
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Sunzir Deepur wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> any idea where I can find a (free) graphical VCG viewer suitable
> for gcc's vcg outputs ?
>
> seems like the old 1995 package is not applicable on newest linux systems
> (am working on fedora).
See http://www.grap
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Eric Weddington wrote:
> At the risk of extending this out further, can someone explain to me why
> using TABs is preferrable, as they are interpreted, while spaces are
> unambiguous?
If anyone wants to explain this to Eric, please do so off-list.
Let's n
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:36:25AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> o Muchnik book is a fat one. Muchnick's book is rather encyclopedia
> of optimizations and can be considered as collection of articles with
> many details (sometimes too many). But some themes (like RA and
> scheduling) are d
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:08AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
>
> Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
Or the release notes could just say something like:
* New warning
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:50:47PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> >> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> >> bug
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload.c (full text below).
That is really obnoxious and should be removed.
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:45:21AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
> >
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
> a patch. What is it then?
Sometimes the
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Yes, that is the current state of 4.1 and 4.2 branches (as of
> yesterday). I don't think we will see a change with the reverted
> alaising patches for itanium because conservative aliasing most probably
> will be compensate
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:27:42AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>... *All* releases seem to have the
> predictions that they are useless, should be skipped because the next
> release will be so much better in way X or Y, etc.; I think the question
> of how widely used a release series turned o
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:41:48PM +0100, J.C. noticed that there
is a tarball with an interesting name on gcc.gnu.org.
The actual announcement is always delayed by 24 hours or so to allow time
for all of the mirrors around the world to pick it up.
This should not be a surprise, given that there
Joe Buck wrote:
> > Will 4.1.2 be worse than 4.1.1 for code that has these kinds of failings?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:53:10PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Yes
> > If so, then it might be better to push the fix that allows overrides that
> > throw back to 4.2, and
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:16:43PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
> > > actually use throw() everywhere, or
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:04:05PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:00:41PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > "make bootstrap" used to compare stage2 and stage3 after gcc was
> > bootstrapped. "make bootstrap" would abort if comparison was failed.
> > Now, compare stage2 and stage3 is n
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:49:56AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Tom Tromey writes:
>
> Tom> David probably knows this, but for others, Jakub and Andrew put in a
> Tom> patch for this today. I think it is only on trunk, not any other
> Tom> branches.
>
> Should this be included in G
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:36:00PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
OK, I untarred it, built, and tested.
I have test results for all languages except Ada, for RHEL 3
(ancient, but with binutils-2.17), on a
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 03:52:54PM -0500, Karnowski, David wrote:
> Are there any gcc-related issues with the upcoming changes to the
> Daylight Savings Time switch in the US starting this year? That is, will
> programs compiled with the gcc (excluding any third-party libraries)
> have any time-rel
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:14:30PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I also think it would be good to have one option affecting it: turn
> __builtin_unreachable() into an abort(), or turn it into a "cannot be
> reached" marker. I think the former should be the default at -O0, the
> latter at -O1 an
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:53:44PM -0800, Silvius Rus wrote:
> I am implementing -Wstrict-aliasing by catching simple cases in the
> frontend and more complex ones in the backend. The frontend mechanism
> is tree pattern matching. The backend one uses flow-sensitive points-to
> information.
>
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 08:00:29PM +, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:44:50PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Meanwhile, there's __builtin_trap() already, and Ralf might use that
> > even to remove the asm volatile, and Paweł could use it in a default:
> > label. It's still
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, icrashedtheinternet wrote:
> I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
> conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
> does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
> internationally accepted st
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:15:05PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >>> dec-osf4.0f/4.1.2/install-tools/mkheaders.conf
> >>> /bin/sh: : cannot execute
> >>> /bin/sh: /]*
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > dec-osf4.0f/4.1.2/install-tools/mkheaders.conf
> > /bin/sh: : cannot execute
> > /bin/sh: /]*/../,, -e ta: not found
> > sed: Function s,[ cannot be parsed.
>
> That should not happen on Solaris if you set CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/ksh as
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> But then to have Mark *support* rth's change, that really shows the
> total lack of leadership and a common plan in the design of gcc.
There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just
said that rth probably
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:02:10PM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 09:56:55 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At present, as far as I know, the highest defined optimization level
> >is -O3. -ONUMBER where NUMBER > 3 is equivalent to -O3. There is no
> >particular
401 - 500 of 980 matches
Mail list logo
