On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For the following simple example,
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int a=0;
> switch (a)
> {
> case 0:
> int b=2;
> break;
> }
> }
>
> GCC will complain:
> tst.c: In function 'main':
> tst.c:7:6: error: a label can only be
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>> "Hargett, Matt" writes:
As noted earlier I think we do want to use some STL classes.
>>>
>>> I agree with Mark's earlier declaration that it is relatively
>>> straight-forward,
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> DJ Delorie writes:
>
>>> I did mean that all virtual functions should be protected.
>>
>> This forbids the most useful thing about virtual functions - letting
>> child classes implement a public ABI defined by the base class.
>
> There are
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mark Mitchell
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have written a proposed set of C++ codin
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> Overall the wiki document looks good. I'd like to disallow
>>
>> * Operators may only be overloaded for types which implement numeric
>> values, where the overloaded op
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo
>>> wrote:
>>>
>&
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
>> switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
>
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I have written a proposed set of C++ coding conventions on the wiki at
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
>>
>> This is only a preliminary proposal. It requires fleshing out and
>> discussion.
>
> Thank
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> Maybe we can use this in AC_CHECK_DECLS instead of having a new
>>> separate macro. If there is a parenthesis in the name call the new
>>> version, if there is none, call the old one.
>>
>> You shouldn't need to keep the old version around
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this, we should decide whether we
> switch and how. So, I would like comments on the following questions:
>
> 1- Should we switch to C++?
Yes.
> 2- What is the cost in terms of build time?
I wa
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> And we definitely should not do so just because we can. I see
>>> little value in
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:29 PM, David Fang wrote:
>> For example, I think it goes without question that at this point we are
>> limiting ourselves to C++98 (plus "long long" so that we have a 64-bit
>> integer type); C++0x features should not be used. Using multiple
>> inheritance, templates (ot
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> And we definitely should not do so just because we can. I see
>> little value in turning our tree upside-down just because we now
>> can use C++ and
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:39:08AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > At last, there is a very
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> 徐持恒 wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>>> It's a pity to exclude namespaces, the advantage of breaking the
>>> single-big-namespace model are evident.
>>
>> Yes, the advantage of namespace is obvious.
>>
>>
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> 徐持恒 wrote:
>
>> I have FUD on the use of "advanced" C++ features like template(even
>> standard template), namespace, exceptions. This is partly because my
>> favorite source code analyzer can not handle them properly. I have
>> tried to use
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.3.5 has been released.
GCC 4.3.5 is a bug-fix release containing fixes for regressions and
serious bugs in GCC 4.3.4. This release is available from the
FTP servers listed at:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
Please do not contact me directly regarding
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 01:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn
>>> there is *no* circumstances
>>> under which ignoring the return from *any* function is *always* a bug.
>
>> For practical purposes, it is always a bug to ignore the return value
>>
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 01:17, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn writes:
>>
>>> On 28/05/2010 22:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
The warn_unused_result extension was implemented specifically to catch
security problems. Permitting developers
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Vakatov, Denis (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E]" writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>>> We should handle must_use_result and warn_unused_result similarly, except
>>> that adding a cast to (void) disables the warn_unused_result warning.
>>> Pe
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/27/2010 12:33 PM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> while GCC3.4.4 treats the long long multiplication just like simple
>> ones, which generates only one
>> mult insn for each statement, like
>>
>> In my understanding, It‘s not necessary using t
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> You could "fix" this by walking all functions and check if only
>> one real language personality routine remains and promote
>> the generic C personality uses to that. Of course you need then
>> to be able to identify the C personality whic
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi, Richard,
> With resolution file generated by GOLD (or I am going to hack gnu LD), is
> externally_visible attribute still needed to annotate those symbols accessed
> from non-LTO objects when compiling with -fwhole-program.
Yes it is. W
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> When I run the test suite with Ada, I have two test suite failures,
>> for lto6.adb and lto8.adb. The failure mode is the same for both, see
>> end of this mail. Are these failures expected?
>
> That's an LTO bug: it can change the personali
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have tried vectorization and encountered a problem which I can see
> is common to some ports (I tried ia64 and bfin).
>
> For this function:
>
> #define ts unsigned short
> void f(ts* __restrict__ a, ts* __restrict__ b, ts* __restrict__
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> > wr
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:50 AM, FX wrote:
>> 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
>
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 4:52 AM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> 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:
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
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I only read the gcc@ archive, so sorry about breaking the thread.
> Testing with gfortran finds
>
> FreeBSD's libelf with no patches.
>
> === gfortran Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 34177
> # of unexpe
Status
==
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.
The 4.3 branch is open again for regression and documentation fixes.
Previous Report
===
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-05/msg00253.html
I will co
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
&
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Steven Bosscher
>>> wrote:
&
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Steven Bosscher
>>> wrote:
&
2010/5/21 Jan Hubicka :
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Steven Bosscher
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> stack variable overlay and stack slot assignments is here to
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> stack variable overlay and stack slot assignments is here too.
>>
>> Yes, and for these I would like to ad
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:54 PM, IainS
> wrote:
>> No Asbestos required - but .. I do have some observations..
>>
>> I write pretty much all my serious (day-job) code in ObjC and..
>> ... I have stated that it's an intention to make *t
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Kai Wang wrote:
> On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 11:38:39PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> As http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg00120.html shows,
>> *-unknown-freebsd* exhibits tons of failures around LTO.
>>
>> I dug a bit deeper, and even the most trivia
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I am hit by an ICE in LTO (latest GCC4.5 branch). The problem
> is that it shows up in our target/our target-specific application,
> so I cannot really reduce test case and file a bug.
>
>
> getShortVersionString.clone.0/1(-1) @0x2aa0
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:59 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 18 May 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 16:15, Sandeep Soni
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > 1. What should be the format of representation
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 09:48, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> It would be nice if the lto had some sort of verbose mode which
>> would show you the compiler flags being used for each object file
>> as it was processed (since there does appear to
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>>
>> For example the C++ frontend sets flag_exceptions to 1 but the
>> command-line does not contain -fexceptions. Or the Fortr
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 08:39, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of trying to record switches that way we should instead
>> save the final settings of relevant flag_* values somewhere and
>> simply compl
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 5/16/10 23:18 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>> What is the current LTO design with regards to the
>> retention of compiler flags during the actual link
>> time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
>
> Some options are embedded, but n
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, mike wrote:
> Sorry for the newbie question ...
>
> I need the build process to look for libelf in /usr/lib but gmp, ppl, cloog,
> etc. in /usr/local/lib. I've tried lots of combinations of the
> flags/options listed by 'configure --help' including this:
>
>> ~/GC
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:18 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> What is the current LTO design with regards to the
> retention of compiler flags during the actual link
> time optimization compilation steps. For example, if
> one is linking mixed fortran and c object files which
> have distinct flags pass
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Ugh. This presents a chicken-and-egg problem to symbol resolution
>> and type-merging.
>>
>> To be clear, the issue is sth like
>>
>> unit1
>> -
>> int size;
>> int a[size];
>>
>> unit2
>> --
>> extern int size;
>> extern a[size];
>
any issues to
bugzilla.
The branch remains frozen and all checkins until after the final
release of GCC 4.3.5 require explicit RM approval.
If all goes well, I'd like to release 4.3.5 next week.
Richard.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuer
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 04/25/2010 01:24 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> [ Concerning this assert ]
>
>>> It is checking that for one symbol we only have one definition.
>>>
>>> You are using
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Priority # Change from Last Report
> > --- ---
> > P1 0
> > P2 104
Status
==
The 4.3 branch is now frozen for the preparation of a 4.3.5
release.
The branch is ageing and changes to it should be limited to
obviously correct changes. In the past month I have skimmed
through the bugs that were fixed for 4.4 and backported a
bunch of obvious regression fixes.
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> most of the remaining warnings issued by the LTO compiler on object files
> compiled from Ada are caused by a small flaw in the GIMPLE types merging
> process: it is done before symbols are merged so compatible types (typically
> doma
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:45 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 5/4/10 15:11 , Wolfgang kaifler wrote:
>
>> (gdb) p browse_tree (current_function_decl)
>> No symbol "browse_tree" in current context.
>> (gdb)
>>
>> What i'm doing wrong? Any ideas?
>
> The tree browser code has bitrotted to the point th
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:09 AM, ajmcello wrote:
> I've got a quad core 3.2Ghz FreeBSD-8 system with 8GB of ram. I
> compiled and installed Cloog-PPL and PPL, mpfr, gmp, mpc, polylib,
> etc. I'm using make -j 4, and my gcc compile has been going for about
> 24 hours. Is this normal or did something
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> First let me say that the C++ memory model is crap when it
>>> forces data-races to
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> I've been working for a while on understanding how the new memory model and
>> Atomics work, and what the impacts are on GCC.
>>
>> It would be ideal
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I've been working for a while on understanding how the new memory model and
> Atomics work, and what the impacts are on GCC.
>
> It would be ideal to get as many of these changes into GCC 4.6 as possible.
> I've started work on some of the mo
This is a proposal to introduce an optimization level -Ofast
that can collect (target specific) optimization flags that
can affect runtime behavior such as -funsafe-math-optimizations
or -mrecip.
Currently none of the standard optimization levels have this
kind of affect and we should not change
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> As http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg00120.html shows,
> *-unknown-freebsd* exhibits tons of failures around LTO.
>
> I dug a bit deeper, and even the most trivial test program
> int main() { }
> fails with
> lto1: internal
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:30:33AM -0700, Mark Mielke wrote:
>> Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
>> specification and by the Linux glibc manpage:
>>
>> DESCRIPTION
>> The memcpy() function copies
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Massimo Nazaria wrote:
>> You'll have to post your work so people can see. Now the
>> best the
>> experts here can do is guess what you're holding behind
>> your back :-)
>>
>> Ciao!
>> Steven
>>
>
> I completely agree with you. This is my pass:
>
> static unsigned
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Massimo Nazaria wrote:
>> You have to schedule your IPA pass at a point where the
>> whole
>> program is in SSA form, which is during the regular IPA
>> passes
>> at earlierst.
>>
>> Richard.
>>
>
> It does not work :(
> I put my pass after all the ipa-passes and r
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Massimo Nazaria wrote:
> Hi everybody!
> I am working on a gcc-pass which processes every statement using this code:
>
> for (node = cgraph_nodes; node; node = node->next)
> {
> if (node->analyzed && cgraph_is_master_clone (node))
> {
> pus
2010/4/29 Jan Hubicka :
>> Well, we'd then need to re-architect the symbol merging and
>> LTO unit read-in to properly honor linking semantics (drop
>> a LTO unit from an archive if it doesn't resolve any unresolved
>> symbols). I don't know how easy that will be, but it shouldn't
>> be impossible
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> Yes - that would be basically a linker plugin without plugin support.
>> And I'd go even further and have LD provide a complete symbol
>> resolu
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:11 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 26/04/2010 10:46, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>>> If I understand correctly, what we farm out to gold/lto-plugin is the task
>>> of identifying a) which arch
2010/4/29 Jan Hubicka :
>> > On 4/28/10 10:26 , Manuel López-Ibá?ez wrote:
>> > Not yet, I mistakenly thought -fwhole-program is the same as -fwhopr
>> > and it is just for solving scaling issue of large program.(These two
>> > options do look similar :-). I shall try next.
>> > >>>
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been playing with LTO. I notice that LTO doesn't work when
> object files are achived into static library files and the final
> binary is linked against them, although these object files are compiled
> with -flto and I can see
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Here is the relevant block from the dump:
>
> :
> __vect_var__26_6 = *__vect_p_14_19;
> *__vect_p_18_25 = __vect_var__26_6;
> # PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_2 } (restr)
> __vect_p_22_11 = __vect_p_14_19 + 8;
> # PT = nonlo
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 2010/4/23, Richard Guenther :
>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
>> > Hi Richard,
>> >
>> > 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
>> >> On Wed, Apr
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 25/04/2010 23:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>
>>> Is there a PR open about this, or any notes anywhere? Being as I use a
>>> non-ELF platform and so gold is not an option, I'd be pleased to
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>>
>> No, gold should choose a single prevailing definition. The issue is that
>> gold and the linker-plugin seem to be unmaintained.
>
> Looki
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> So we need more patch reviewers. How can that be addressed?
>
> The situation has improved in this area since the "Reviewer" position was
> introduced a few years ago though.
>
>> It is also important to make more effective use of the patch
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
>
>>> lto-symtab.c:549:
>>>
>>> 524
>>> 525 /* Helper to process the decl chain for the symbol table entr
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 22:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> We had a patch tracking system, and it was completely ignored by most
>> maintainers.
>
> But *submitters* did use it until it went down. So it was useful for
> tracking unreviewed
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 24 April 2010 21:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>> There is definitely a workflow problem though. I have
>>> had patches I submitted through Bugzilla which didn't
>>> g
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> While compiling our Weather Forecasting code with the latest trunk, I got
> the following (don't know how long this has been a problem, as I haven't
> tried -flto recently):
>
> lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at
> lt
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
> in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
> known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
> The additional overhead for building the plugin support is
> close to
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> Usually I'd report an ICE by using -save-temps and reporting with the full
> commandline.
>
> Now an ICE with -flto happens during the link stage. And, since KDE is
> quite a bit of code, there's a ton of object files and shar
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>> >
>
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:38:04AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>> > Looking at the results of the tests executed
>> > by plugin.exp on x86_64 Fedora 10, I don't see
>> > any evidence that -rdynamic is ever use
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> I strongly suspect that mixing -flto and -g might not be a well supported
> option right now ...
>
> Still I also suspect an ICE is not supposed to happen. (I was trying to
> recompile Debian's KDE packages with -flto; the pac
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now that GCC is in the stage1 and gc-improv branch work is finished as
> I see it, I propose to merge it to mainline.
>
> The goal of the branch is to make the type of GC-allocated objects
> known to GC at allocation time, by chan
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM, IainS wrote:
>
> consider :
>
> typedef int INT1 ;
>
> int func (INT1 x) ;
>
>
>
> now if I am in grokparms() parsing "INT1 x " and I want to issue a nice
> diagnostic for x...
>
> I can't seem to find the right magic that gets me back to that DECL for INT1
>
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)
>> development team have released GCC 4.5.0. [...]
>
>
> It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins, another
> major f
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Lu, John wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've encountered a performance issue in a port of GCC I'm working on,
>> where the behavior of LIM is affected by the ordering of fields in a
>> structure. I've been able to re
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Lu, John wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've encountered a performance issue in a port of GCC I'm working on,
> where the behavior of LIM is affected by the ordering of fields in a
> structure. I've been able to re-create it with a GCC 4.3.1
> Linux X86 compiler. With GCC 4.3.
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Amine Khaldi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like first to thank you for the upcoming 4.5 release. I'm really looking
> forward to updating.
>
> I'm also interested in the DragonEgg project (http://dragonegg.llvm.org/)
> that aims to use llvm as a GCC backed.
>
> DragonEgg
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:44, Nathan Froyd wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
>>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I hav
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:30:44AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:18, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>> > Otherwise, as Ian said in another topic [2]: "I have a different fear:
>> > that gcc will become increasing ir
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> >
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > No. make_rename_temp should go away. Please.
>
> I don't disagree, in principle (less code is always good). What is
> wrong with it?
It asks the SSA renamer
.html
The next status report will be sent by Jakub.
--
Richard Guenther
Novell / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>
> In the generated code for this function I can see a scheduling problem:
>
> int xxx(int* __restrict__ a, int* __restrict__ b)
> {
> int __restrict__ i;
> for (i
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 13:14, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > While working on the tree-if-conv.c, I realized that the copy
> > of the contents of a non scalar variable are not correctly done.
> > The copy assignment triggers this error:
> >
> > e
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 13 April 2010 12:23, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>&g
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>>
>>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>>
>> OK, the point is not about whether printf is pure or not.
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>>
>> Surely printf writes to global memory (it clobbers the stdout FILE*)
>>
> OK, the point is not about whether printf is pure or not. Instead, if
> programmer knows the callee function such as printf contains no
> memory access that affects
801 - 900 of 2444 matches
Mail list logo
