I want to implement an analog of __ has_include from CLang.
Please tell me, how to get started?
--
Regards,
niXman
___
Dual-target(32 64 bit) MinGW compilers for 32 and 64 bit Windows:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingwbuilds/
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to compilation
of a completely new programming language, as yet unrecognized? How much
of a big job would I be looking at for such a task?
Regards
--
Chris Jones
OpenSUSE Linux x86_64 (PC)|Android (Smartphone)|Windows
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:24:56AM +0400, niXman wrote:
I want to implement an analog of __ has_include from CLang.
Please tell me, how to get started?
Look into libcpp/ directory, probably into libcpp/macro.c
Good luck. Cheers.
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 05:45:12PM +1000, Chris Jones wrote:
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to
compilation of a completely new programming language, as yet
unrecognized? How much of a big job would I be looking at for such a
task?
It is certainly possible, and it
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3. This is just another
feature of gcc development
On 11/06/2012 09:45, Chris Jones wrote:
Is it possible to modify the source code of gcc to enable to compilation
of a completely new programming language, as yet unrecognized? How much
of a big job would I be looking at for such a task?
I would think that would depend entirely on the language
Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
When calling walk_tree in a hook that gets a node passed
as const_tree, the const qualifier must be kicked off
somehow in order to get get of build warning.
Currently I have the following hook implementation for
TARGET_ASM_DECLARE_CONSTANT_NAME:
static void
I am trying to write a new GCC pass in gcc-4.1.2. This is my first
attempt and I am trying to print lines of code for a function gcc is
compiling. So I added the below code. Note if I remove code in
execute_gimple_manipulation method the issue does not occur :
gcc/gcc-4.1.2 1223 cat
Hi,
In ref_maybe_used_by_call_p_1, the comment says strcat/strncat
additionally reads memory pointed to by the first argument. I do not
understand these words well, why the first string is read by the two
functions?
Thanks for help.
--
Best Regards.
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com a écrit:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 03:41:16PM +0530, Satya Prakash Prasad wrote:
I am trying to write a new GCC pass in gcc-4.1.2. This is my first
attempt and I am trying to print lines of code for a function gcc is
compiling. So I added the below code. Note if I remove code in
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
In ref_maybe_used_by_call_p_1, the comment says strcat/strncat
additionally reads memory pointed to by the first argument. I do not
understand these words well, why the first string is read by the two
functions?
BTW, you might even use MELT (a high-level domain specific language to extend
GCC) for that purpose.
See http://gcc-melt.org/ for more (or ask me).
Since our org is still making use of gcc 4.1.2 - hence the concern.
Please let me know on usgae of MELT.
Thanks but checking for cfun is NULL also
./../gcc-4.7/gcc/pretty-print.h:324: warning: ‘__gcc_tdiag__’ is an
unrecognized format function type
../../gcc-4.7/gcc/pretty-print.h:327: warning: ‘__gcc_tdiag__’ is an
unrecognized format function type
I get a lot of those.
Yes, I'm using -disable-bootstrap.
It is a warning, not an error.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 04:19:16PM +0530, Satya Prakash Prasad wrote:
BTW, you might even use MELT (a high-level domain specific language to
extend GCC) for that purpose.
See http://gcc-melt.org/ for more (or ask me).
Since our org is still making use of gcc 4.1.2 - hence the concern.
But
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#stage1warnings
I really don't understand why first stage or --disable-bootstrap is
not using -w. (Probably, like most things in GCC, because nobody has
bothered to implement it.)
On 11 June 2012 12:49, Jay K jay.kr...@cornell.edu wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I observed that HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED gets called with
hard registers that HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK would reject.
Is it save to set HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED to FALSE for
hard registers for which HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK
Il 11/06/2012 11:18, Richard Guenther ha scritto:
Instead of renaming Stage 3 to Stage 2 at that point we figured that
using different terminology would reduce confusion. I am not wedded
to Stage A and B, though this seems to be the most straightforward
option (over colors, Alpha and Beta
On 06/11/2012 06:27 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Richard Guentherrichard.guent...@gmail.com a écrit:
Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? Development Stage
and Stabilizing Stage? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html says:
--
Likewise, in order to run only the g++ “old-deja” tests in the testsuite
with filenames matching `9805*', you would use
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS=old-deja.exp=9805*
I tried all way but in vain the gcc/config/i386/crtfastmath.c just
fails to compile properly.
On 12-06-06 18:58 , Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
A bit late to the game... :-)
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 18:55:28 -0400, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
On 12-06-11 08:20 , Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 06/11/2012 06:27 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Richard Guentherrichard.guent...@gmail.com a écrit:
Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? Development Stage
and Stabilizing Stage? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always
Hi!
New release of the DWARF optimizer and duplication removal utility dwz
git archive --format=tar --remote=git://sourceware.org/git/dwz.git
--prefix=dwz-0.2/ dwz-0.2 | bzip2 -9 dwz-0.2.tar.bz2
is now available, compared to the 0.1 release from almost two months ago
this release features a
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
why not give them names with an actual meaning? Development Stage
and Stabilizing Stage? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
The latter is when the knives come
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com writes:
why not give them names with an actual meaning? Development Stage
and Stabilizing Stage? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in tables,
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Well, the CPP macros could be translated to builtin calls and
evaluated by the middle-end during or after gimplification. Then the
FE would be really independent of the back-end. Sounds crazy?
Integer constant expressions from C standard headers
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C and Obj-C++ testing have been known to work in the
past for installed testing. Java, Ada and Go are quite likely to have
problems; I don't think I've tried installed testing for libmudflap,
libffi, libitm, libatomic (but it
On 12-06-11 10:24 , Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I don't see any reference to gompconfig.exp anywhere in the source tree.
(But generally the Tcl code initializing a testsuite should do setup of
anything outside site.exp, like in the libstdc++ testsuite.)
Yeah, sorry. gompconfig.exp is a local
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html says:
--
Likewise, in order to run only the g++ “old-deja” tests in the testsuite
with filenames matching `9805*', you would use
make check-g++ RUNTESTFLAGS=old-deja.exp=9805*
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
I observed that HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED gets called with
hard registers that HARD_REGNO_MODE_OK would reject.
Is it save to set HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED to
Hi!
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 09:48:03 -0400, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 12-06-06 18:58 , Thomas Schwinge wrote:
When --enable-build-with-cxx is enabled:
* The size of the build directory stage1-gcc shrinks (!) from 1.1 GiB
to 0.4 GiB, such that the whole build tree
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:18:23AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? Development Stage
and Stabilizing Stage? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Shouldn't we have
On 06/11/2012 04:34 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/test.html says:
--
Likewise, in order to run only the g++ “old-deja” tests in the testsuite
with filenames matching `9805*', you would use
make
I propose therefore to accept the existing inconsistencies and deal
with them entirely within GDB. I have figured out that the ISA bit
lost in various places can still be recovered as long as we have
symbol information -- that'll have the st_other attribute correctly
set to one of
Hello,
(please note that this is a modified repost from the gcc-help list - I was told
that the gcc list is a better place for my questions)
I have been trying to port a reasonably recent version of gcc to a m68k NeXT
running NEXTSTEP 3.3. After many struggles and lots of help from the m68k
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Bin.Cheng wrote:
For example, most c programs call printf to format output data, that
means floating point code get linked even the program only want to
output non-floating point numbers. Currently, we rely on end-user to
call iprintf if the program does not want floating
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Janis Johnson wrote:
The one drawback to fixing this is that comparisons with older test
results will show the changed summary lines. I think the long-term
benefits of unique lines in test summaries far outweighs the short-term
pain, but I'd like to make sure others share
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#stage1warnings
I really don't understand why first stage or --disable-bootstrap is
not using -w. (Probably, like most things in GCC, because nobody has
bothered to implement it.)
If you are building a cross
ok. 1) my mistake for not reading the FAQ, sorry.
2) add to the FAQ, for the diligent folks who read it? Sorry, good point.
It's tough, you know, bootstrap compilers vary widely in quality. gcc 4.0
pretty good, old vendor cc sometimes really bad, though they are falling out of
support (e.g.
On 11 June 2012 22:27, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2012, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#stage1warnings
I really don't understand why first stage or --disable-bootstrap is
not using -w. (Probably, like most things in GCC, because
Hello,
I would like to know if there is a way to know if a warning option like
-Wno-initializer-overrides is supported or not by gcc. My purpose is to
write an m4 macro that checks if an option is supported or not by a
compiler.
thank you
Vincent Torri
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Bin.Cheng wrote:
For example, most c programs call printf to format output data, that
means floating point code get linked even the program only want to
output non-floating point numbers.
Satya Prakash Prasad satyaprakash.pra...@gmail.com writes:
But the compilation process fails further on:
gcc/gcc-4.1.2/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/xgcc
-Bgcc/gcc-4.1.2/host-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/gcc/
-B/usr/local/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/
Vincent Torri vto...@univ-evry.fr writes:
I would like to know if there is a way to know if a warning option
like -Wno-initializer-overrides is supported or not by gcc. My purpose
is to write an m4 macro that checks if an option is supported or not
by a compiler.
This question is not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53620
--- Comment #6 from Markus Trippelsdorf markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-06-11 06:27:16 UTC ---
The attached testcase crashes in determine_visibility.
4.8 is also affected.
Here is an ugly testcase:
markus@x4 /tmp % cat test.ii
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53627
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-06-11 06:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #4)
because that was fixed with C++11 due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53627
--- Comment #8 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2012-06-11 06:47:42 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #4)
because that was fixed with C++11 due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53629
Bug #: 53629
Summary: [c++11] spurious uninitialized warning in case of
non-static data member initializers.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53629
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Bug #: 53630
Summary: C+11 regex compiler produces SIGSEGV
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
08:29:50 UTC ---
Documented as missing in
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2011
The whole of Clause 28 is partially supported or not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Bug #: 53631
Summary: [C++11] regex is unimplemented
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53630
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52719
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53622
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49870
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53631
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bisqwit at iki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de
2012-06-11 08:39:45 UTC ---
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012, hubicka at ucw dot cz wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32629
--- Comment #2 from Jan Hubicka hubicka at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51969
--- Comment #8 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:17 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52214
--- Comment #5 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:16 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48600
--- Comment #22 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:10:14 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:10:07 2012
New Revision: 188381
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188381
Log:
2012-06-11 Joey Ye joey...@arm.com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53620
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53599
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rohangarg at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53594
--- Comment #6 from vincenzo Innocente vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch
2012-06-11 09:28:49 UTC ---
the patch compiles and fixes my test case,
I've not tested any possible side effects
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Bug #: 53632
Summary: [bugzilla] Bugzilla being very slow to submit changes,
sending duplicate emails
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||50176
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53616
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51466
--- Comment #7 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:51:11
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50078
--- Comment #16 from xuepeng guo xguo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11 09:51:12
UTC ---
Author: xguo
Date: Mon Jun 11 09:51:05 2012
New Revision: 188383
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=188383
Log:
2012-06-11 Terry Guo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #3 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:09:18
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
1 DIVPD instruction, as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53592
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
--- Comment #3 from Kirby Zhou kirbyz...@sogou-inc.com 2012-06-11 10:15:58
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Fixed on trunk by patch for PR 50043
Did this patch apply to 4.7 branch?
I retested with 4.7 branch 20120610, The bug is still exist.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53613
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50043
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #4 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:31:00
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
Other versions of the Ada compiler, and the C compiler,
and the C++ compiler of the same version produce
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53605
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36602
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
10:58:41 UTC ---
Ok. I suppose I need to fix gcc.target/x86_64/abi/test_struct_returning.c
somehow then ... :/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53590
--- Comment #6 from Georg georggcc at googlemail dot com 2012-06-11 10:59:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Small note: Same sequence of instructions from GNAT GPL 2011
running on x86_64 Linux/GNU:
You're comparing apples with oranges
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:04:57 UTC ---
I did no changes to the Bugzilla code for almost two months, so I guess the
problem is external to Bugzilla. Based on duplicated comments in emails, I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:06:57 UTC ---
Wow, Bugzilla is indeed very slow, even when sending two emails only.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53433
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
11:09:17 UTC ---
I can reproduce it on SLE11-SP2, glibc-2.11.3, with plain ./configure
--with-build-config=bootstrap-lto.
Honza? I suppose we have spurious
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
11:16:38 UTC ---
Yeah :-) It's got _really_ slow. I don't remember which day it happened, but
it was a very noticeable sudden change from reasonably responsive to very slow.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #5 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:36:20 UTC ---
fche told me on IRC that jobqueue has been disabled two weeks ago, which is
exactly when the slowness started to appear. So it may still be mail-related.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #6 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
11:46:26 UTC ---
He just told me that the checks for outgoing emails take between 2 and 10
seconds *per email*! I think we found the culprit. Either the scan must be
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53633
Bug #: 53633
Summary: __attribute__((naked)) should disable -Wreturn-type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #7 from Frédéric Buclin LpSolit at netscape dot net 2012-06-11
12:03:19 UTC ---
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam, which is
why these spam checks are enabled for outgoing emails. So to mitigate the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53623
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
12:38:06 UTC ---
Removing the whole
if (debug_info_level DINFO_LEVEL_TERSE
|| (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)
TREE_CODE (TYPE_CONTEXT (type)) != FUNCTION_DECL
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53470
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
12:54:50 UTC ---
It seems we never come along with a DECL_CONTEXT that is a BLOCK (nor does
the C++ frontend do that ...). Replacing the TYPE_CONTEXT clearing with
if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53632
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-11
13:03:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
fche says that some spammers create a Bugzilla account to send spam,
Yes, we've had a few attacks recently.
Thanks for identifying
1 - 100 of 255 matches
Mail list logo
