I have been following this discussion for quite a while now, guess
it's the right time to introduce myself as one of the newcomers.
I had attended the Abstractions in GCC workshop 2012 by Prof. Uday and
his team. It definitely helped me kick start with understanding of GCC
and got me interested;
I am keeping a diary of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Alec
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 01:57 AM:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am trying to understand the full implications of your statement:
Yes, that's what I say. Any pointer that is dereferenced is first
copied to
On 01/23/2013 07:38 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Evolving this codebase is largely a thankless and difficult job. It's
technically interesting to me, but I know I can only do so much.
It's also worth pointing out that historically it's been very
difficult to persuade people to fund this. Many
On Thursday 24 January 2013 02:32 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
This is very different from putting it as one among so many other things on
the wiki. Look at it from the view point of a newcomer. There are so many
OK, then.
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate to involve the every decision, especially when
it's not
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I am keeping a diary of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Thanks for the suggestion. Will do that from now on.
--
Kartik
http://k4rtik.wordpress.com/
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
sudakshina1...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I am currently updating a pass that was made for gcc-4.6.*, so that it
works for gcc.4.7.2.
In the pass for gcc-4.6.*, a code fragment from tree-ssa-structalias.c
was picked up and used.
Given below
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Uday P. Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 01:57 AM:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am trying to understand the full implications of your statement:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:35 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which
On Thursday 24 January 2013 03:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/24/2013 09:39 AM, Uday Khedker wrote:
I wasn't sure if taking responsibility automatically grants me the right
to change what others have put up and that is why I was seeking support
of the steering committee.
It's not appropriate
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
But on a serious note, it would be great to view the course material as more
than documentation. The way there are official manuals and official code
available on the gcc website (I can't have my own manual and call it GCC
Did anyone read? I hope you see how it is nothing like a strong typedef (as its
called). To me it seems like the strong one is too similar to a class to be
worth adding, especially after reading that paper, it seems like it would allow
new-php-user like behaviour of EVERYTHING IS A CLASS but
On 1/24/2013 9:10 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
Alec I am eager to see what you guys think, this is a 'feature' I've
wanted for a long time and you all seem approachable rather than the
distant compiler gods I expected.
I certainly see the point of this proposal, indeed introducing
this kind of strong
On 1/24/2013 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
What I am not clear about is when an operation is deemed undefined
or implementation defined.
The compiler is free to assume that no arithmetic operation
on signed integers results in overflow. It is allowed to
take advantage of such assumptions in
[ gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org ? ]
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi All,
I have a question on integer overflow and wrap, and GCC optimizations.
I have a small library that uses inline assembly to check OV/CY flags
for both x86/x64 and ARM. x86/x64 uses FLAGS/EFLAGS, while ARM uses
CPSR.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
On 1/24/2013 10:02 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
What I am not clear about is when an operation is deemed undefined
or implementation defined.
The compiler is free to assume that no arithmetic operation
on signed integers
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Chassin chas...@ceis.cujae.edu.cu wrote:
i am going slowly i started with gcc flow , data structure and passes .As
Java is my best language , i am dealing with advanced c / c++ learning curve
at same time , one of my targets now is understanding the cgraph data
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Chassin chas...@ceis.cujae.edu.cu wrote:
On 01/23/2013 02:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Chassin chas...@ceis.cujae.edu.cu
wrote:
On 01/23/2013 10:55 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
The callgraph isn't
On 01/24/2013 03:33 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
This is truly undefined, not implementation defined, and
if your program has such an overflow, you cannot assume
ANYTHING about the generated code.
Signed integers that
On 01/24/2013 04:02 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
I have a small library that uses inline assembly to check OV/CY flags
for both x86/x64 and ARM. x86/x64 uses FLAGS/EFLAGS, while ARM uses
CPSR.
Please show some sample code.
You can check the flags set by a preceding arithmetic/logical
On 24/01/13 14:22, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 1/24/2013 9:10 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
Alec I am eager to see what you guys think, this is a 'feature' I've
wanted for a long time and you all seem approachable rather than the
distant compiler gods I expected.
I certainly see the point of this
On 1/24/2013 10:33 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
In this case, I claim we must perform the operation. Its the result
that we can't use under some circumstances (namely, overflow or wrap).
You do not have to do the operation if the program has an
overflow. The compiler can reason about this, so
Hello,
I have just created a new branch, based on the google/gcc-4_7-mobile
branch, for migrating the vtable verification feature from gcc 4.6.3
(on the google/gcc-4_6-mobile-vtable-security branch) to gcc 4.7. The
new branch is branches/google/gcc-4_7-mobile-vtable-security.
I will be
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Caroline Tice cmt...@google.com wrote:
Hello,
I have just created a new branch, based on the google/gcc-4_7-mobile
branch, for migrating the vtable verification feature from gcc 4.6.3
(on the google/gcc-4_6-mobile-vtable-security branch) to gcc 4.7. The
new
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:38 PM:
Anything I would consider official courseware would have to be contributed
to and maintained by the community (of which you can play the main part
of course). Now I don't know whether it is wise to try to ask the FSF if it
wants to
On 01/22/2013 07:42 PM, Cary Coutant wrote:
I believe we required an explicit attribute on the forward declaration
in such a case.
The question is, what do we want to do for a user type that, say, has a
std::string field. Rejecting the program would be non-conforming, but
otherwise we're
Richard Biener wrote, On Thursday 24 January 2013 05:28 PM:
In the program below, we have a global pointer p that has conditional
assignments before its
use on the RHS of a copy statement.
-
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
Yeah. It was focused on the RTL/md part of GCC, with
On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
relevant. So no fair bugging Jeff about it :)].
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 19:59 +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 23/01/13 19:38, Diego Novillo wrote:
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to
On 24 January 2013 16:21, Alec Teal wrote:
That's because this has nothing to do with objects, in the paper that was
linked (called strong typing) it implemented new types rather like
objects, using score = public int { //definitions }; for example,
extending an int effectively, this is what I
On 24/01/13 18:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24 January 2013 16:21, Alec Teal wrote:
That's because this has nothing to do with objects, in the paper that was
linked (called strong typing) it implemented new types rather like
objects, using score = public int { //definitions }; for example,
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
Did anyone read?
I can sometimes take several days to get to reading an email,
particularly when travelling.
I hope you see how it is nothing like a strong typedef (as its
called). To me it seems like the strong one is too similar to a
class
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
...
If you want your feature in mainline gcc, you will need to convince
the maintainers that the feature is valuable. Likewise, if you want
your extension in the C++
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez al...@redhat.com wrote:
an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
[Before anybody asks, the training program is probably
FYI:
Lawrence Crowl says If you want your feature in mainline gcc not I.
Also I want to be the one to do this feature, implementation.
On 24/01/13 19:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal
On 01/24/2013 12:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code generating
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Agreed.
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end of GCC is its
biggest part; it is the thing
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler. Additionally, g++ has very low
fidelity wrt the
On Thu, 24 Jan 2013, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
How does one engage the C and C++ committees?
http://isocpp.org/forums
--
Marc Glisse
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is becoming a
self-evident truth.
However, as a
On 24/01/13 20:18, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler.
On 24/01/13 20:16, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end
Hello,
I have an RTL pass that obtains the offset-from-frame-pointer of each stack
variable per function. I get this data after the expand pass has worked
its magic. Anyways, the offset is usually correct. However, I am running into
a case where I see the offset as being 2-word sizes off from
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Richard Biener
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Sudakshina Das
sudakshina1...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
I am currently updating a pass that was made for gcc-4.6.*, so that it
works for gcc.4.7.2.
In the pass for
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:31:50PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
It'd be really cool if GCC could compile to LLVM and also parse it.
There exist a dragonegg plugin to GCC which uses GCC front-end and LLVM
back-end ( middle-end)
http://dragonegg.llvm.org/
Cheers
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH
David Malcolm wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 12:15 AM:
[oh, and Uday: am very much enjoying reading your Data Flow Analysis
book - thanks for writing it! ]
Thanks David!
I am already working on the second version because now I know very many
improvements that I would like to make.
Toon Moene wrote, On Friday 25 January 2013 02:31 AM:
On 01/23/2013 08:43 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
Ah, well - the old issue that LLVM has just become a very good
marketing machinery
(and we've stayed at being a compiler - heh).
The problem of being on a compiler-only list is that this is
Hi,
I read code in lower-subreg.c and found GCC only split some of
multi-word mode instructions, like load from memory into pseudo reg,
etc. The related code is in find_decomposable_subregs.
So for below example from PR56102:
double g = 1.0;
double func(int a, double d)
{
if (a 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56096
--- Comment #1 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-24
08:54:44 UTC ---
Bad is ambiguous, it could mean sub-optimal or it could mean incorrect or
wrong. In this case it means sub-optimal, please change the PR summary to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
--- Comment #4 from Mikael Pettersson mikpe at it dot uu.se 2013-01-24
09:31:20 UTC ---
I've checked and gcc-4.6 does miscompile this test case, but gets it right with
the PR52573 fix applied. Vanilla gcc-4.7 doesn't seem to miscompile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56087
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52573
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tg at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56076
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
--- Comment #8 from Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
10:30:29 UTC ---
Author: steven
Date: Thu Jan 24 10:30:26 2013
New Revision: 195420
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195420
Log:
gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55934
Steven Bosscher steven at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #39 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 11:34:20
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
Tested proposed patch from Comment 37 on x86_64-apple-darwin11 and
x86_64-apple-darwin12 with Xcode 4.5.2 on both systems. No
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Krügler daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com
2013-01-24 12:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I cant reproduce the crash with any version
Here is what I get with my mingw-64 gcc 4.8.0 20130120 (experimental):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56088
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56095
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #3 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:06 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:20:57 2013
New Revision: 195421
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195421
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 12:21:33 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Jan 24 12:21:24 2013
New Revision: 195422
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195422
Log:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56085
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56077
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54402
--- Comment #31 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2013-01-24 12:45:44 UTC ---
--- Comment #30 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-23
16:49:05 UTC ---
Is it still a regression
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56097
Bug #: 56097
Summary: Segmentation fault with -01 -ftree-vrp
-ftree-loop-distribute-patterns -funswitch-loops
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:27:55 UTC ---
Created attachment 29264
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29264
gcc48-pr56078.patch
Patch I've bootstrapped/regtested. It seems in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #37 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-24 13:30:53 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
Bill, tests in Instrumentation/AddressSanitizer are compiler-only tests
and thus are mostly platform independent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54835
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:33:13 UTC ---
Before my patch we got:
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: excess elements in struct initializer [enabled by
default]
20030305-1.c:15:5: warning: (near
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #23 from Andrey Belevantsev abel at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:37:05 UTC ---
You are right from the target maintainer point of view, as you understand what
really happens in the code. But this is not what the compiler sees
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55975
--- Comment #38 from Kostya Serebryany kcc at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
13:46:17 UTC ---
OK. Please let me know if we can assist setting up a PPC bot in the future,
to
help maintain compatibility.
Oh, that'll be great even now.
If
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #3 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:53:18 UTC ---
Created attachment 29265
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29265
gcc-4.6.3 QA Notices
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
--- Comment #4 from mirimiri66 at gmail dot com 2013-01-24 13:54:20 UTC ---
Created attachment 29266
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29266
gentoo package systeme emerge --info
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49657
mirimiri66 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mirimiri66 at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
14:19:17 UTC ---
On a brief look, this doesn't look like using location of neighbouring
statement, given:
grep 66:1 pr56094.c.115t.cunroll | wc -l
0
grep 66:1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52832
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24 14:52:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Here is a patch to accept the test case in comment 0:
It fails on:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/associate_6.f03 -O (test for excess errors)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #4 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
14:54:02 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 14:53:56 2013
New Revision: 195425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195425
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #40 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-24
14:54:34 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
My understanding from Nick's comments was that the ld64/dyld behavior is
now as follows. For performance reasons,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #3 from Dmitry Gorbachev d.g.gorbachev at gmail dot com
2013-01-24 14:58:58 UTC ---
Yes, it is not a very important thing, but it should not be harder to maintain
then -fuse-ld=bfd, -fuse-ld=gold options. It is not like I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56094
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:06:28 UTC ---
So, the reason seems to be:
mod = build2 (INIT_EXPR, TREE_TYPE (t), t, unshare_expr (val));
SET_EXPR_LOCATION (mod, EXPR_LOC_OR_HERE
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693
--- Comment #41 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2013-01-24
15:23:54 UTC ---
Iain,
I believe the current behavior of dyld in darwin10/11/12 is clearly
described in...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56062
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:34:28 UTC ---
Since you haven't provided a use case or explained why you want it, and
maintainers have said they don't want it, I think the onus is on your to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
--- Comment #5 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
15:41:19 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:41:04 2013
New Revision: 195429
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195429
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55755
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56057
lailavrazda1979 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
--- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:18:35 UTC ---
Author: jamborm
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:18:26 2013
New Revision: 195430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195430
Log:
2013-01-24
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55927
Martin Jambor jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55889
--- Comment #24 from David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:37:23 UTC ---
It does not matter if the scheduler knows that insns 17, 20, 26 and 29 really
are calls. The clobbers express everything important.
insn 15 produces
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56078
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-24
16:59:56 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 24 16:59:44 2013
New Revision: 195432
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=195432
Log:
PR c/56078
1 - 100 of 179 matches
Mail list logo
