Hello,
I'm trying to do a live update of a function without killing or
stopping the program. This is a single threaded application which runs
something similar to the below code. Maximum time is spent in the
while(1) loop.
What i want to do is compile with gcc-4.8 with -pg and -mfentry and
-- Forwarded message --
From: Niklaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Subject: Maybe g++ bug (in stl_algo.h 0x08048beb in std::__unguarded_partition)
To: gcc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hi,
This crashes on g++ 4.2.3. I think my code is correct. I'm not doing
any out
--- Comment #4 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 17:42 ---
On the below version of gcc on cygwin (winXP SP3) i don't have any problems
with optimization on or off. They produce consistent correct result. Why is it
a problem with linux ? or am i doing something wrong.
I tried
--- Comment #7 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 18:28 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: wrong-code on i486-linux-gnu with -O[12], -O0 works
Because on x86 gnu/Linux, the precision is set to 80bits rather than
64bit like it is on windows.
Does increasing bits
--- Comment #10 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 21:23 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
Does increasing bits cause floating point errors. How could 64 bit precison
give correct result where as 80 bit give incorrect one.
You can have rounding errors
On 8/26/08, Janis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 16:41 +0530, Niklaus wrote:
i ran with this file under testsuite/gcc.dj and it aborted with -O2.
It is for the optimization bug that i reported few days back. If we
don't have this test can someone add ths.
File
i ran with this file under testsuite/gcc.dj and it aborted with -O2.
It is for the optimization bug that i reported few days back. If we
don't have this test can someone add ths.
bug_powO2.c
Description: Binary data
Hi ,
are you getting the bug with latest trunk on this code. If you can
tell me , i'll forward it to debian/ubuntu mainters.
On Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Niklaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hi,
-O0 gives me correct output
but -O1 or -O2 gives me wrong output. i've attached .s files.
Can
Hi,
When i run with the options g++ prog.c -o prog and run the exectuable
it gives me the correct output
but when i do g++ prog.c -o prog -O2 i get the wrong output
The inputs are below
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/junk/prog# g++ bug_gccopt.cpp -O2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/home/junk/prog# ./a.out
1
22, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Niklaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
When i run with the options g++ prog.c -o prog and run the exectuable
it gives me the correct output
but when i do g++ prog.c -o prog -O2 i get the wrong output
Note by the way I think your ispow2 is incorrect. It is doing a a ==
1
Hi,
Is there any way to specify in the code the optimization value like
(-O2 or -O3) instead of on the command line.
I want
#include stdio.h
...
...
return 0
}
to be compiled with -O2 or -O3 or some better optimization than
standard gcc flags like gcc a.c .I have only 1 file. The problem is
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 22 June 2006 12:55 pm, Niklaus wrote:
sorry i didn't understand your question. I build on debian and
everything works fine for me
Please be more elaborate where it didn't
find libc.so.6.
I think works, creating extra library simlinks allows the build process to see
Hi ,
I have compiled binutils successfully with the target i686-unknown-winnt.
But the make for gcc fails. It says target not supported. I think i
can workaround it using i686-unknown-mingw32.
Few questions
1) Is it a known feature or a bug or something that i am doing wrong ?
2) Do we have
Hi,
I have been trying to build sparc elf executables from i386. I got
gcc,binutils and newlibc and configured them with target=sparc-elf .
Now when i got gcc and binutils working , i wrote a small program
test.c:
int main()
{
return 3;
}
i compiled it using sparc-elf-gcc -c test.c.
On 4/13/06, Mark Cuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello - this is definitely a newbie question, so bear with me...
We've been using gcc under Solaris on SPARC hardware for some time now. The
guy who was here before me set up the previous version (gcc-3.3.3) and now
I'm trying to get gcc-3.4.4
On 4/13/06, Dave Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 03:49:43PM +0100, Dave Murphy wrote:
Hi,
I've been having some odd problems with relocation of 4.x toolchains -
i.e. when a toolchain is configured, built and installed with one prefix
Hi,
Until now i have only build cross toolchains for linux systems.
Usually i build crossgcc in 2 parts, one is before glibc is built ,
the other is after glibc is built.
Is there any way where i can skip the step glibc and build the whole
gcc compiler.
If yes how do i build the whole gcc
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: niklaus dot giger at netstal dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25726
18 matches
Mail list logo
