Certainly I am doing something wrong, but if not... anyone else
seeing this?
/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-darwin/./gcc/xgcc -B/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-
darwin/./gcc/ -B/Volumes/mrs3/Packages/gcc-20050128/powerpc-apple-
darwin8.0.0/bin/ -B/Volumes/mrs3/Packages/gcc-20050128/powerpc-apple-
darwin8.0.0/l
On Mar 21, 2005, at 3:05 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I notice that libobjc have a different exception than all of the
other ones
which have an exception to the GPL. Is there is a reason behind this?
The different between the libobjc exception and the one in libgcc/
libstdc++ is that
the exception
On Mar 19, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I'm updating the copyrights in the Blackfin port, and I noticed
that there appear to be two versions of the wording that allows
more-or-less unlimited use of libgcc files. One can be found e.g.
in config/arm/crtn.asm:
As a special exceptio
On Thursday, March 17, 2005, at 11:37 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
So, I've been working on mudflap for darwin8, and these are the
results I get... I know what you're thinking, it's impossible to get
it working because it doesn't have --wrap and friends.. well, I
pulled some
On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Rajkishore Barik wrote:
I have been trying to use "-fprofile-generate" and "-fprofile-use" for
some small
bitwise C benchmarks (developed at MIT). I have a check-out of October
2004 GCC build of 4.0
version.
Try a checkout from today and let us know if the problem remai
On Mar 17, 2005, at 4:27 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
I suppose it would be ok, but it would only be relevent for
embedded targets where "int" < SImode. Otherwise we use the
plain "ffs" symbol in libc.
Ah, ok, that falls into the don't care bin for me... For them, they
probably don't use shared
So, I've been working on mudflap for darwin8, and these are the
results I get... I know what you're thinking, it's impossible to get
it working because it doesn't have --wrap and friends.. well, I
pulled some magic pixie dust out and sprinkled it around and it's
starting to work...
The q
On Mar 16, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Yen wrote:
I have a problem to compile multiple files together, so please
everybody give
me a help, thanks!
Wrong list, try gcc-help instead.
I have a question about libgcc export for shared libraries... libgcc
exports (via libgcc-std.ver):
__ffsdi2
but not:
__ffssi2
. Is there any particular motivation not to, or should it, or, does
it just not matter a whole lot? If people think it would be good to
do, I'd be happy to do up
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 08:57 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering if it is at all possible to coax the gcc 4.0
testsuite to run cleanly with a binary installation of gcc 4.0?
Yes. CC_UNDER_TEST=gcc runtest --srcdir=. --tool gcc or something like
that.
On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
After enabling that patch, we recompiled the whole system, all of X,
and the
3000 packages of third party sources.
-ftrampolines was needed exactly 0 times.
We'll need it at least once that we know about for darwin. I don't
expect an impact from th
On Saturday, March 12, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
If lang.opt is the canonical method used to declare language
specific option, then there should be a feature in parsing
lang.opt to override all other options.
Hard to disagree with anything you said...
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 06:39 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
What is even more appalling is that there is no way to inhibit the
swallowing of the options.
Sure there is, it is just a matter of code. Check out --classpath and
option_map for example in gcc.c. Sure seems like it isn't harder than
a
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 03:42 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
If you do need to extend the system, then it is best to use option
names similar to existing ones. For instance, -z and -Z are assumed
to be linker options, so if you need a new linker option then
something like -zthis or -Zthat mig
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 03:52 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Per Bothner wrote:
So the immediate question is: how should the testcase be fixed?
Specify a line number in the second dg-error to tell dejagnu what line
to
expect the error on.
{ dg-error "expected regexp" "test
On Sunday, March 6, 2005, at 05:17 PM, Alfonso Urdaneta wrote:
I'd like to start hacking on osx gcc. What tag is recommented to
check out ? Also, what areas need work most? I'm an experienced
programmer, but I know jack about gcc.
You have a few choices. Mainline is best, and what I would re
On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch
and it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or
that's won't happen.
can I asume that this is a political change by Apple in this regard?
I tried to describ
On Feb 28, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
I'd like to know what the 'official' position regarding ObjC++ is now.
Anybody willing to clear up?
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch and
it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or that's w
On Feb 26, 2005, at 8:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gcc -XLinker -M test.c 2>test.map
would output some usful information about locating
function to lib and ...
The detail analyze of them would be very useful.
Where can I find some introduce document about them?
This list isn't for such questions
On Feb 25, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
I have also moved all my changes to gcc.c and c-incpath.c into
config/linux.h and config/frameworks.c. the latter is just darwin-c.c
with the pragma stuff removed.
Sounds reasonable.
I also have a problem with -F switch it makes gcc hang.
S
On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
what is darwin_register_objc_includes in gcc/config/darwin-c.c for? is
it needed for linux?
/* Register the GNU objective-C runtime include path if STDINC. */
/* Register the GNU OBJC runtime include path if we are compiling
OBJC
wi
On Feb 21, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Mile Davidovic wrote:
Functions are completely the same.
What is the reason for such compilere behaviour?
Just lack of code in the compiler to do better, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg00354.html for some of the
details and starting point, should you
On Feb 17, 2005, at 3:47 PM, Matt Austern wrote:
I'm sure there are still lots of horrible bugs
OK to commit to mainline?
Please, the copyright seems wrong. I think that should be fixed before
it goes in.
On Feb 17, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Davide Rossetti wrote:
I remember I read on this mlist about a testing tool. a script or
something which took a source file in input and tried to swap lines
and compile it, then reported results... can't google it exacly.. any
help ??
best regards
http://gcc.gnu.org/
On Monday, February 14, 2005, at 04:04 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Fine, i'll just keep all the non-snapshot tags for now.
There's no reason why we have to keep all the tags in one place.
Further, we can import them all, and then later remove, move or rename
them and these things seem to be versi
On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 05:29 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
I'll keep the last branchpoint of each branch for the initial import
Won't work either... Sometimes we reuses merge labels in non-obvious
ways. top-200501-merge and top-200502-merge both exist, the two were
used for, say, treeprof
On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 06:13 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
I was concerned about the difficulty in building svn and must say that
I
wasn't at all encouraged by this report.
I would instead, look to the people that know how to do it well, to
post something up on the wiki pages on how to d
On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 03:42 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 15:25 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 9, 2005, at 8:54 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
I also plan on excluding merge tags
The last merge tag on active branches should be kept, as they would be
used for the next
901 - 928 of 928 matches
Mail list logo
