> The current trunk does require flex.
> The build dies pretty quickly unless flex is available.
Was the flex dependency recently reintroduced? It used to be that if
you update trunk with contrib/gcc_update (instead of svn up), it sets
the modifcation time of generated files so that flex
Kai,
I tested your patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00445.html
to address the issue
% cat x.c
int main() { }
% gccvs -flto x.c
% gccvs -fwhopr x.c
lto1: fatal error: elf_update() failed: Layout constraint violation
compilation terminated.
lto-wrapper
Dear gfortranners,
For some work-related issue, I find the need to switch my code regularly
between double precision real arithmetics and quad-float. I currently do that
with a proprietary compiler whose brand name matches the regexp
"^In{1,}[t]\x65l$", but I'd be even more happy to do that wit
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100523 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100523/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Steven Bosscher wrote:
> There are lots of other ports that could be dropped to improve
> maintainability of some backends, or even the whole of GCC. That has
> never been accepted as a good reason to drop anything if there are
> still users of it, no matter how few (see pdp11 / vax backends,
> os
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Martin Guy wrote:
>
>> Dropping FPA support from GCC effectively makes the OABI unusable, and
>> often we are forced to use that by the environment supplied to us. Are
>> there significant advantages to removing FPA support, other than
>> re
Martin Guy wrote:
> Dropping FPA support from GCC effectively makes the OABI unusable, and
> often we are forced to use that by the environment supplied to us. Are
> there significant advantages to removing FPA support, other than
> reducing the size of the ARM backend?
I think that maintainabili
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
>> be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
>> [...]
>> I will continue to send status reports for the 4.3 branch w
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The GCC 4.3.5 release has been created and uploaded, it will
> be announced once the mirrors had a chance to pick it up.
> [...]
> I will continue to send status reports for the 4.3 branch when
> applicable.
I am wondering, should I stop the weekly sn
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:48:20AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Kai Wang wrote:
> > The elf_getbase() API in FreeBSD libelf can only be called using an
> > archive member ELF descriptor. It will return -1 (indicates an error)
> > when called with a "regular" ELF object.
> >
On Thu, 20 May 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> think, the tree-like representation. If you have an instruction like
> (set (a) (b+c)) you could have, at the simples, three integers (insn
> uid, basic block, instruction code) and three pointers for operands.
> In total, on a 64 bits host: 3*4+3*8 =
On Sat, 22 May 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I'll be submitting result for that around noon your time tomorrow-
> Right now I am testing vanilla GCC and patched FreeBSD libelf, my
> tester is just rather slow.
Like Kai's patch to FreeBSD's libelf
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/ms
12 matches
Mail list logo
