If you had a month to improve gcc build parallelization, where would you begin?

Suppose you had a month in which to reorganise gcc so that it builds its 3-stage bootstrap and runtime libraries in some massively parallel fashion, without hardware or resource constraints(*). How might you approach this? I'm looking for ideas on improving the build time of gcc itself. So far I

Instability in successive builds of fortran mod files with f951

I'm seeing an element of "instability" in files written by f951. About one time in some tens or even hundreds of builds done with a tight loop, the file libgomp/omp_lib.mod has a different checksum from others. This is slightly problematic because it means that binary distributions of gcc can't be

Re: Reproducible gcc builds, gfortran, and -grecord-gcc-switches

On 16 August 2012 09:38, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Simon Baldwin wrote: > > This creates a problem for build and packaging systems that are > > fanatical about binary reproducibility and checksums. Temporary file > > names differ on each compilatio

Reproducible gcc builds, gfortran, and -grecord-gcc-switches

The default setting of -grecord-gcc-switches recently changed from 0 to 1: 2012-04-25 Jakub Jelinek * common.opt (flag_debug_types_section): Default to 0. ... (dwarf_record_gcc_switches): Default to 1. Because of this, by default all objects in libraries built as p

Gcc testsuite, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and a new libgcc_s that is incompatible with the host libc

I've recently encountered a gcc testsuite issue that is caused by the libgcc_s in the built compiler being incompatible with, but the same architecture as, the host's libc. I'm not sure what the right fix is, so I'm looking for ideas. I build gcc-4.7 for x86 on an x86 host. The bootstrap compile

Re: Hints for backporting gcc 4.5 powerpc fix to gcc 4.4.3?

On 22 March 2011 14:56, David Edelsohn wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote: > > I'm currently trying to backport a small part of gcc 4.5 r151729 to > > gcc 4.4.3.  This revision fixes a problem in powerpc code generation > > that le

Hints for backporting gcc 4.5 powerpc fix to gcc 4.4.3?

I'm currently trying to backport a small part of gcc 4.5 r151729 to gcc 4.4.3. This revision fixes a problem in powerpc code generation that leads to gcc not using lmw/stmw instructions in function prologue and epilogues, where it could otherwise validly use them. On the face of things, the centr

Re: Making gcc -no-canonical-prefixes the default?

On 31 January 2011 01:20, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Some archealogy turned up this as the reason canonicalization was >> inserted: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-02/msg01121.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-02/msg01697.html >> >> Al

Making gcc -no-canonical-prefixes the default?

A quick question about -no-canonical-prefixes... By default, gcc calls realpath() on prefixes generated relative to argv[0] in the gcc driver. If gcc is held as a "symlink farm" the realpath() makes it fail (absent a lot of messy -B, -L, -isytem and so on). It complains about not finding cc1 or

Re: Something weird with cp/decl.c switch statement

Thanks for the review. Commited as revision 125339: r125339 | simonb | 2007-06-05 11:29:42 -0700 (Tue, 05 Jun 2007) | 4 lines * decl.c (grokdeclarator): Readability change. Moved case labels into direct switch statement scope. --S Mark Mitchell wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrot