> Dennis Clarke writes:
>
>> FYI , bug 44455 is a show stopper in the Solaris world.
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
>
> This is
>
> bootstrap/44455 GCC fails to build if MPFR 3.0.0 (Release Candidate) is
> used
>
> Why would this be a showstopper? Who forces you to
Äú ºÃ £¡
±¾¹«Ë¾ÏÖÓи÷ÐÐÒµ¹ú/µØË°
ÔöÖµ¡£ÆÕͨ¡£½¨Öþ£¬¹ã¸æ¡£·þÎñ¡£¹¤³Ì¡£ÔËÊäµÈа淢 Øâ ´ú¿ª ¿ÉÓúø¶¿î ´¹Ñ¯µç»°
13528406753 ÁõÉú
>> === gcc Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected passes57009
>> # of unexpected failures67
>> # of unexpected successes 7
>> # of expected failures 197
>> # of unsupported tests 518
>>
>> === g++ Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected
> === gcc Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes57009
> # of unexpected failures67
> # of unexpected successes 7
> # of expected failures 197
> # of unsupported tests 518
>
> === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes
>> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
>> not build these libraries in-tree.
>
> Yes, and verify that GMP and MPFR are correctly compiled with
> "make check". Recent versions are miscompiled on SPARC/Solaris
> by GCC 4.3.x for x < 3 or 4.
>
> The recommended versio
> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
> not build these libraries in-tree.
Yes, and verify that GMP and MPFR are correctly compiled with "make check".
Recent versions are miscompiled on SPARC/Solaris by GCC 4.3.x for x < 3 or 4.
The recommended versions (GMP 4.3
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> I wrote:
[ You can't imagine the pain working with a 1.5 year old OS ]
Have you seen Solaris 8 ?
[titan]uname -a
SunOS titan 5.8 Generic_127722-03 i86pc i386 i86pc
[titan]cat /etc/release
Solaris 8 2/02 s28x_u7wos_08a INTEL
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>> GMP: include 4.3.2, lib 4.3.2
>>> MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
>>> MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
>
> fails,
>
> Richard recommends:
>
>> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
>> no
Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Dennis Clarke wrote:
GMP: include 4.3.2, lib 4.3.2
MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
fails,
Richard recommends:
Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
not build these libraries in-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi.
I'm sorry if I chose wrong place for my question.
I would like to load debugger, attach to working process, and at some
breakpoint, instead of numerical values in the CPU registers, I would
like to see genesis of each value like "result of f(arg1,
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Dennis Clarke
> wrote:
>> GMP: include 5.0.1, lib 5.0.1
>> MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
>> MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
>
> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or
> do
> not build these libraries in-tre
On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Dennis Clarke
wrote:
GMP: include 5.0.1, lib 5.0.1
MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or
do
not build these libraries in-tree.
I built and tested them separa
GMP: include 5.0.1, lib 5.0.1
MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
>>>
>>> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
>>> not build these libraries in-tree.
>>
>> I built and tested them separate.
>
> You forgot to set LD_LIBRA
On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:37 AM, Dennis Clarke
wrote:
If I go back and rebuild gmp mpfr and mpc thus :
GMP: include 5.0.1, lib 5.0.1
MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
not build these lib
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Do you think we should just ask the FSF to dual-license all of GCC?
>
> Sure, it might at least be worth finding out whether they think there is
> any problem with that.
I've asked on the SC list.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
m...@codesourcery.com
(650) 331
>> If I go back and rebuild gmp mpfr and mpc thus :
>>
>>
>> GMP: include 5.0.1, lib 5.0.1
>> MPFR: include 3.0.0-p3, lib 3.0.0-p3
>> MPC: include 0.8.2, lib 0.8.2
>
> Use GMP from the 4.2.x series and MPFR from the 2.3.x series. Or do
> not build these libraries in-tree.
I built and tested them
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Do you think we should just ask the FSF to dual-license all of GCC?
Sure, it might at least be worth finding out whether they think there is
any problem with that.
Ian
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I believe that the only real fix here is (a) for the FSF to abandon the
>> GFDL, and relicense manuals under the GPL, or (b) for the FSF to add an
>> exception to the GFDL, making it compatible with the GPL in some way.
>> However, I have no evidence that the FSF is cons
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > Dennis Clarke writes:
> >
> >> FYI , bug 44455 is a show stopper in the Solaris world.
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
> >
> > This is
> >
> > bootstrap/44455 GCC fails to build if MPFR 3.0.0 (Release Candidate) is
> used
>
> Dennis Clarke writes:
>
>> FYI , bug 44455 is a show stopper in the Solaris world.
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
>
> This is
>
> bootstrap/44455 GCC fails to build if MPFR 3.0.0 (Release Candidate) is
used
>
> Why would this be a showstopper? Who forces you to build
> Joern Rennecke wrote:
>> That's a bug, then; we shouldn't use a library function there,
>> but the cmpordered[sd]f_t_4 patterns.
>
> Argh, I've missed the required patterns are incorporated already
> in your patch. I'll test it again with sh-softfp-predicate-fix
> when the tests for 4.5.1-rc a
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem
> to happen, does it?
Well - past attendees got date & location confirmation like
"The Summit will be in Ottawa from October 25th to 27th, you should plan to
arriv
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem
> to happen, does it?
It is reportedly being held in the last week of October this year.
Ian
Hello,
I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem
to happen, does it?
Cheers,
Bingfeng
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Christian Bruel :
Using the ieee-sf.S + this patch
OK
Is this only a proof-of-concept, because you only change the ne[sd]f2
implementation?
I changed also the unordered comparison patterns. (cmpunsf_i1,
cmpundf_i1). But yes, the other functions that would
On Thu, 22 Jul 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
>
> > That diff does not appear to relate to undefined behavior. GCC considers
> > these out-of-range conversions to yield an unspecified value, possibly
> > raising an exception, as per Annex F, and does not take the liber
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> index 89743c3..047b717 100644
> --- a/gcc/sched-rgn.c
> +++ b/gcc/sched-rgn.c
> @@ -2935,6 +2935,9 @@ schedule_region (int rgn)
> if (sched_is_disabled_for_current_region_p ())
> return;
>
> + gcc_assert (!reload_completed || current_
Mark Mitchell writes:
> I believe that the only real fix here is (a) for the FSF to abandon the
> GFDL, and relicense manuals under the GPL, or (b) for the FSF to add an
> exception to the GFDL, making it compatible with the GPL in some way.
> However, I have no evidence that the FSF is consideri
Dennis Clarke writes:
> FYI , bug 44455 is a show stopper in the Solaris world.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44455
This is
bootstrap/44455 GCC fails to build if MPFR 3.0.0 (Release Candidate) is used
Why would this be a showstopper? Who forces you to build and install
mpfr
redriver jiang writes:
> Hi,
>
> You mean I should define insn like this:
>
> (define_insn "*iorqi3_imm"
> [(set (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "b"))
>(ior:QI (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "b")
> (mem:QI (plus: HI (match_opera
30 matches
Mail list logo
