Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-05-11)

2007-05-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
not further hold up the release. That is not to say that I would not consider a patch to fix it, of course. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-05-11)

2007-05-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
(they're in an anonymous namespace, so should). It could impact performance on large systems quite a bit. Certainly during linking. Names in anonymous namespaces had external linkage for a long time in G++. Did they have internal linkage in 4.1, or was that introduced (in theory) for 4.2? -- Mark

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-05-11)

2007-05-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
Daniel Berlin wrote: On 5/11/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every time I think we're almost there with this release, I seem to manage to get stuck. :-( However, we're very close: the only PRs that I'm waiting for are: PR 31797: An infinite loop in the compiler while building

Re: MinGW, GCC Vista,

2007-05-08 Thread Mark Mitchell
on non-Cygwin Windows. It's reasonable to put this change in libiberty, since it's job is to provide portability between systems. My two cents, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: MinGW, GCC Vista,

2007-05-08 Thread Mark Mitchell
Ross Ridge wrote: Mark Mitchell writes: In my opinion, this is a GCC bug: there's no such thing as X_OK on Windows (it's not in the Microsoft headers, or documented by Microsoft as part of the API), and so GCC shouldn't be using it. Strictly speaking, access() (or _access()) isn't

Re: Information about LTO

2007-05-08 Thread Mark Mitchell
participants were ever as excited about it. It's certainly not paramount, and Kenny has shown that it's probably more practical just to read/write the IL directly. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: libjava Divide_1 and pr6388 fail on 4.2.0 RC3 for several targets

2007-05-07 Thread Mark Mitchell
patch to the 4.2 branch, unless I've warned that I'm doing a final release build. (That's not going to happen imminently; I'm still reviewing the latest lists of nasties.) Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC3 Available

2007-05-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
Richard Earnshaw wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.2.0 RC3 is now available from: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.2.0-20070501 This build now contains the fixes for the Ada build problem present in RC2. At this point, I have no plans for an RC4. However, I am reviewing

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC3 Available

2007-05-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
if --disable-checking is in effect? Otherwise, how to do folks like Richard E. that are running natively on small systems work around this issue? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC3 Available

2007-05-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
actually performs as advertised. Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: Backport fix for spurious anonymous ns warnings PR29365 to 4.2?

2007-05-02 Thread Mark Mitchell
, please find a C++ maintainer who wants to argue for backporting this and ask them to mark the PR as P3 with an argument as to why this is important to backport. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.2.0 RC3 Available

2007-05-02 Thread Mark Mitchell
change my mind about that. Please see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-05/msg00032.html for information about reporting problems. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC3 Available

2007-05-02 Thread Mark Mitchell
checkout, match what you see today, with a release tarball? This is in no way a criticism, or a comment on RETMS testing (about which I know almost nothing), etc.; just a general comment, which your message gave me the excuse to make. :-) Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED

GCC 4.2 RC2 Available

2007-05-01 Thread Mark Mitchell
, please download and test the actual tarballs, rather than checking out from SVN tags, in order to help detect packaging problems. If you find a problem, please do not email me directly. Instead, file an issue in Bugzilla: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Thank you, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery

GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
Mark Mitchell wrote: Zdenek, I would still be interested in a fix for PR31360. From the audit trail, it looks like your patch for this PR on mainline causes another problem (PR 31676), and that you are not working on PR 31676 because you cannot build for powerpc-linux-gnu. (That is what

Re: GCC 4.2.0 RC2 Building

2007-04-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
: that will give us a better chance at solving this problem, without introducing new ones. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.2.0: Still planning on RC1, etc.

2007-04-27 Thread Mark Mitchell
In case anyone here sends me an email, and gets my vacation auto-reply for the next week: I do still plan to proceed with the 4.2.0 release schedule in my last status report. FYI, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-24)

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Mitchell
!! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-24)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Mitchell
found the problem, I will send a patch once it passes regtesting. Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Changes to PR prioritization policy

2007-04-24 Thread Mark Mitchell
not a maintainer, but you want to make one of the changes above, lobby a maintainer. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-24)

2007-04-24 Thread Mark Mitchell
. I've gotten a little paralyzed with this release. I've wanted to take some combination of (4), (5), and (6), and I've made a hash of it. I'm going to cut my losses and 4.2.0 out the door. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Mitchell
, by checking some property of the back end, that would be superior. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

2007-04-23 Thread Mark Mitchell
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: 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. Why not? Is your objection because SPEC doesn't

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
to do so. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC mini-summit

2007-04-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
, and various other opinions that have been presented to me. I've got some ideas, but I want to let them percolate a bit before trying to write them down. In any case, I want people to know that I'm listening. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

2007-04-16 Thread Mark Mitchell
to be conservative and put the full GPL notice on all of them. If it doesn't apply because the file is too small, whoever wants to use it in some non-GPL way can assert that fact if they want. Is there some reason that putting the GPL on them is bad/wrong? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL

Maintainers for C preprocessor

2007-04-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
the MAINTAINERS file to reflect your new appointment, and thank you for agreeing to take on this responsibility! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: error: no newline at end of file

2007-04-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
error messages see the message. They can control whether the message is an error or a warning via -pedantic-errors (or the C++ front-end's -fpermissive). -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

2007-04-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

2007-04-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
, is likely to introduce new bugs, no matter how positive its overall impact. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: [RFA] C++ language compatibility in sources [was RE: Add missing casts in gengtype-lex]

2007-04-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
choose to do that, as everyone agrees that this is good stuff to have! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: RFC: GIMPLE tuples. Design and implementation proposal

2007-04-10 Thread Mark Mitchell
at serialization time. Then, when you deserialize, you could just leave them self-relative, or swizzle them back. Man, playing with all these ideas would sure be easier if you could make a class and overload * and - -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

2007-03-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
it with an assert.) If that works, it's OK. If not, and you want to punt it back, go ahead. Thanks again for working on this! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: error: no newline at end of file

2007-03-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
be overhauled at some point. But, this is it's current state, and it's been that way for a long time, so to resolve this issue, we should just play the same game. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: [patch] generated string libraries -Wformat

2007-03-25 Thread Mark Mitchell
, but it might help Bruce to know for sure whether he's heading in a direction you're likely to approve. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

2007-03-25 Thread Mark Mitchell
Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: Joseph, would you please take a look at PR 31136? Andrew believes this to be a front-end bug. I don't think this is a front-end bug. Thank you for investigating. (OK to commit this patch to mainline subject to the usual

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

2007-03-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
starting to prefer (2). It's a simple solution, and pretty efficient. Anyone want to champion (1) or (3)? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-22)

2007-03-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
Mark Mitchell wrote: There are still a number of GCC 4.2.0 P1s, including the following which are new in GCC 4.2.0 (i.e., did not occur in GCC 4.1.x), together with -- as near as I can tell, based on Bugzilla -- the responsibility parties. PR 29585 (Novillo): ICE-on-valid PR 30700 (Sayle

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

2007-03-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
disagreement about that. I thought the plan was to this in TYPE_LANG_SPECIFIC, etc., so that it's not a generic effect on all trees? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

2007-03-20 Thread Mark Mitchell
and runtime libraries.) So, I still believe that I'll be able to build GCC 5.0 (on hardware available at that point) in less time than it took to build GCC 3.4 (on hardware available at that point). -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

2007-03-19 Thread Mark Mitchell
) is unquestionably something that we want to do anyhow. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-17 Thread Mark Mitchell
Paolo Bonzini wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: Paolo Bonzini wrote: IIUC, the problem only manifests while *building* the release candidates, not for users of the release candidate. For 4.2, my suggestion is to just use a bootstrap4 while building the RC. That's an attractive idea. But, I'd

GCC 4.2.0 RC1

2007-03-17 Thread Mark Mitchell
first filing a PR, as I am unable to keep track of all the issues if they are not in the database. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-16 Thread Mark Mitchell
, but if you know whether it's going to break, let me know. :-) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-16 Thread Mark Mitchell
the Makefiles, if there are any more such problems. As Joseph's noted, the Java problem is already gone on mainline, thanks to the ECJ integration. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: We're out of tree codes; now what?

2007-03-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
choice. Like Ian, I think the macros above are fine. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
Joseph S. Myers wrote: 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 comparison failure! ./java/parse.o differs ./java/parse-scan.o differs Has anyone else seen this? I'm now looking

Re: GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-15 Thread Mark Mitchell
a version of GCC 3.4.x (built by CodeSourcery) as the bootstrap compiler. It does seem like a suspiciously similar situation, though; I'm sure that Joseph will be able to tell us if the problem is reproducible with GCC 3.4.x. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: XFAILing gcc.c-torture/execute/mayalias-2.c -O3 -g (PR 28834)

2007-03-14 Thread Mark Mitchell
wand, that would put the right XFAIL goo into all tests before every release so that all users who built the toolchain correctly always got zero FAILs, I would do it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

RFH: G++ manual page in GCC 4.2.0

2007-03-13 Thread Mark Mitchell
for releaes), doc/gcc.1 is in the source directory. VPATH finds it, so the dependency is satisfied, but the copy doesn't work. I intend to fix this by changing the rule to be: cp $ doc/g++.1 which will resolve VPATH correctly. Does anyone see a problem with this plan? Thanks, -- Mark

GCC 4.2 branch comparision failure building Java

2007-03-13 Thread Mark Mitchell
The GCC 4.2.0 RC1 build has failed (on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) with: Comparing stages 2 and 3 Bootstrap comparison failure! ./java/parse.o differs ./java/parse-scan.o differs Has anyone else seen this? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Import GCC 4.2.0 PRs

2007-03-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
for initializing arrays of pointer-to-member functions in C++. * PR 30590 (Guenther, Merill) -- Wrong code generated by NRV. * PR 30700 (Hubicka) -- Cgraph causes undefined references. * PR 30704 (Edelsohn) -- Bad code generation for long long on big-endian targets. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL

Re: Import GCC 4.2.0 PRs

2007-03-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
Ulrich Weigand wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: * PR 28544 (Brook, Weigand) -- this is an ARM ICE which Paul has tracked to reload, but he's not sure what to do there. Perhaps Ulrich can help. This description doesn't appear to match the bugzilla record. Maybe you're referring to PR 28675

PATCH: make_relative_prefix oddity

2007-03-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
? The patch below (which is against an older version of libiberty, and might need updating) fixes it. Assuming you agree that this is a bug, would this patch (with updating and testing) be OK? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713 Index: libiberty/make-relative

GCC 4.2 branch snapshots disabled

2007-03-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
testing on the actual prereleases, as those are most likely to contain any defects that I might introduce into the actual release as well. (*) I guess this should really be Beta 1; it's not quite a release candidate, yet, in that I fully expect changes after this point. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell

GCC 4.2.0 RC1 Status

2007-03-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
* Jerry DeLisle * David Edelsohn * Steve Ellcey * Ben Elliston * Daniel Franke * Kaveh Ghazi * Richard Guenther * Richard Henderson * Geoffrey Keating * Thomas Koenig * Simon Martin * Andrew MacLeod * Mark Mitchell * Brooks Moses * Joseph Myers * Alexandre Oliva * Andrew Pinski * Mark Shinwell

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)

2007-03-09 Thread Mark Mitchell
, but I've added a link to your message to the audit trails. Optimistically, someone might miraculously fix them, but it's very helpful to know that that's going to be unlikley. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)

2007-03-06 Thread Mark Mitchell
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: On 05/03/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After reviewing all of the traffic[1] that stemmed from my previous status report, I've decided that, indeed, it makes sense to steam ahead with GCC 4.2.0 based on current GCC 4.2.0 release branch. I ask special

Re: Signed overflow patches OK for 4.2?

2007-03-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
are particularly pretty. Ian, please do the backport and check in the changes as soon as you can. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: Who should fix platforms broken by extern inline hack?

2007-03-04 Thread Mark Mitchell
. This patch (not yet approved) is my contribution to fixing the problem. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00021.html Please let me know if you feel this has gotten stuck, and I will try to help move it forward. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331

GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)

2007-03-04 Thread Mark Mitchell
. :-) Of course, that's not to say that non-maintainers shouldn't contribute as well! Let's get it done! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713 [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-02/msg00427.html [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?query_format

Re: Comparison of Itanium gcc 4.1 and 4.2 on Spec2000

2007-02-23 Thread Mark Mitchell
? Are you able to try reverting the aliasing patches to see how much of an impact they have on Itanium? It would be interesting to know how that compares with the 4% on IA32. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
Grigory Zagorodnev wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller regression relative to 4.1. There is the 4.2 (r120817) vs. 4.1.2 release FP performance comparison

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
sense to compare unmodified FSF 4.2 compilers with distribution-optimized 4.1 compilers. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

RFC: Constructor and destructor priority attributes

2007-02-22 Thread Mark Mitchell
. The attribute syntax above works in both C and C++, and is backwards-compatible; without the (N) you just get the default initialization priority, as you do at present. I plan to merge this functionality to the GCC mainline. Does anyone object to this feature, in principle? Thanks, -- Mark

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

2007-02-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
by other improvements. If someone with a different chip is willing to provide the same measurements, that would help eliminate Intel-specific characteristics in the data as well. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: Installing GCC documentation: Why a nonstandard title page?

2007-02-21 Thread Mark Mitchell
be; that seems like a good thing. However, please avoid the bikeshed: we can all fuss over what font size to use, etc., but there's not much upside. I vote you pick something, and we all accept it. :-) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-20 Thread Mark Mitchell
on Intel Core2 Duo at -O2 optimization level. Do you happen to have a 4.1.x baseline to compare those against? Excellent question; I should have asked for that as well. If 4.2 has gained on 4.1 in other respects, the 4.7% drop might represent a smaller regression relative to 4.1. -- Mark Mitchell

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

2007-02-20 Thread Mark Mitchell
trying to put as much of it as possible into being RM and C++ maintainer. However, that PR is in the list of open 4.2 PRs, so when I next make a pass over those PRs, I'll certainly look at it. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-19 Thread Mark Mitchell
branch in the usual way. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

2007-02-19 Thread Mark Mitchell
) March 31. Feedback and alternative suggestions are welcome, of course. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-19 Thread Mark Mitchell
.GemsFDTD-18.3% 465.tonto -2.5% 470.lbm -4.1% 481.wrf -2.7% What does that translate to in terms of overall score? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: 40% performance regression SPEC2006/leslie3d on gcc-4_2-branch

2007-02-19 Thread Mark Mitchell
choices are revert the patch and accept the bugs, or vice versa. Is there any reason to expect the bugs to be particularly more prevalent in 4.2 than they were in 4.1? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC3 Cancelled

2007-02-14 Thread Mark Mitchell
-skip-if { *-*-* } { -fpic -fPIC } { } } */ double a; void t() { I think this makes sense. At worst, it's overly conservative, and the test would pass on some targets using those flags, but that's not a big deal. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

4.1 branch open

2007-02-14 Thread Mark Mitchell
The 4.1 branch is now open for changes under the usual regression-only rules for release branches. Here are the changes that I commited during the release process. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713 2007-02-14 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] * DEV

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC3 Cancelled

2007-02-13 Thread Mark Mitchell
not to be locally bound in shared libraries (which it determines by checking flag_shlib) and flag_shlib is generally set if flag_pic is true. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
the last RC and the actual release. So, I feel that I have no choice but to do a 4.1.2 RC3 with a more conservative version of DECL_REPLACEABLE_P. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
Richard Henderson wrote: On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:06:11AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: Does it seem overly aggressive to you to assume f cannot throw in g, given: void f() {} void g() { f(); } where this code is in a shared library? Yes. If F is part of the exported

Re: Some thoughts and quetsions about the data flow infrastracture

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
to give the special-case information to the core DF code, then I'm sure everyone would agree that it made sense to use something different. But, that would be only in extraordinary situations, rather than having lots of reinvention of the same infrastructure. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
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 visibility attributes? But, presumably, most people don't

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

GCC 4.1.2 RC3 Cancelled

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
and Joseph's update of translation files. If the build change for non-standard shells is also checked in tonight that's fine; if not, there's a good workaround. So, my current intent is build the final 4.1.2 release tomorrow evening in California. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL

Re: Some thoughts and quetsions about the data flow infrastracture

2007-02-12 Thread Mark Mitchell
is whether it makes the generated code faster. So long as it doesn't make the generated code slower, and so long as the APIs seem well designed, and so long as it doesn't make the compiler itself too much slower, I think it's a win. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: US Daylight Savings Time Changes

2007-02-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
for that. Java is not a major release priority, and at this point I'm not anticipating a 4.1.2 RC3. However, I would suggest that we apply the patch to the 4.1 branch after 4.1.2 is released, assuming that the Java maintainers are comfortable with that. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-11 Thread Mark Mitchell
and this one appears to have regressed since the case is from 2003. This looks to be at worst a minor code quality issue. 6. 22_locale/num_put/put/wchar_t/14220.cc fails with sparc64 -fpic/-fPIC. This is unfortunate, but I don't see any evidence of a major blocking issue there. -- Mark

GCC 4.1.2 RC2

2007-02-09 Thread Mark Mitchell
in Bugzilla. Based on the absence of issues reported for GCC 4.1.2 RC1, I expect GCC 4.1.2 to be identical to these sources, other than version numbers, and so forth. I intend to spin the final release early next week. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: false 'noreturn' function does return warnings

2007-02-06 Thread Mark Mitchell
good way to represent a control-flow barrier at user level. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1.2 Status Report

2007-02-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
.) Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1.2 Status Report

2007-02-05 Thread Mark Mitchell
the user compiles a large application and it doesn't work, there's no hint that -fno-strict-aliasing is the work-around. It's not like an ICE that makes you think Hmm, maybe I should turn off that pass, or compile this file with -O0. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650

GCC 4.1.2 Status Report

2007-02-04 Thread Mark Mitchell
the answers to the issues above. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: gcc-4.1.2 RC1 build problem

2007-02-02 Thread Mark Mitchell
, but if setting CONFIG_SHELL doesn't fix it, I would consider it more serious. Please let me know if that's the case. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1 Branch Frozen in Preparation for GCC 4.1.2 RC1

2007-01-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:53:41AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: I plan to create GCC 4.1.2 RC1 sometime this afternoon, US/Pacific time. Therefore, please do not make any checkins to the 4.1 branch after 2PM PST. Once RC1 is uploaded, the branch will be open

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC1

2007-01-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
because it requires a newer GAS. Paul's counter that the newer GAS is only needed if your compiler would otherwise crash seems persuasive to me, if true, but I'd certainly want Richard to be comfortable with the change. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: GCC 4.1 Branch Frozen in Preparation for GCC 4.1.2 RC1

2007-01-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: PR target/30370 (powerpc-unknown-eabispe can't build libgcc2) is a regression from 4.1.1. A patch was posted earlier this month at URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg00600.html. I have regrettably forgotten

Re: GCC 4.1.2 RC1

2007-01-30 Thread Mark Mitchell
Paul Brook wrote: On Wednesday 31 January 2007 01:26, Mark Mitchell wrote: Robert Schwebel wrote: What about PR28516, would it be acceptable for 4.1.2? There are two issues: (1) it's not marked as a 4.1 regression, let alone a regression from 4.1.x. Did this test case work with older

Re: [c++] switch ( enum ) vs. default statment.

2007-01-29 Thread Mark Mitchell
wouldn't assume that no unspecified behavior occurred. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

2007-01-29 Thread Mark Mitchell
his use of TREE_COMPLEXITY. I agree that using TREE_COMPLEXITY for OpenMP is undesirable, and that we should eliminate that use. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713

Re: G++ OpenMP implementation uses TREE_COMPLEXITY?!?!

2007-01-29 Thread Mark Mitchell
Steven Bosscher wrote: On 1/29/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Email is a tricky thing. I've learned -- the hard way -- that it's best to put a smiley on jokes, because otherwise people can't always tell that they're jokes. I did use a smiley. Maybe I should put the smiley

GCC 4.1.2 RC1

2007-01-29 Thread Mark Mitchell
to the CC: list for the issue. Please do not send me reports without first filing a PR, as I am unable to keep track of all the issues if they are not in the database. We'll do either the final GCC 4.1.2 release (if all goes well), or RC2 (if it doesn't) in about a week. Thanks, -- Mark

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >