Libtool update for gcc-4.8 (slim-lto bootstrap)?

Is there any interest in updating the in-tree libtool to something newer? This update would allow to use a -fno-fat-lto-objects lto-bootstrap target, that should speed up the (lto) build time. If there is interest, when would be the best date for such an update? Thanks. -- Markus

Re: Add an option to bootstrap GCC with asan?

On 2012.11.17 at 09:37 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: Hi, There is a bad memory access in LTO: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54795 Should we add an option to bootstrap GCC with asan? I think that's a good idea, but please note that gcc's implementation doesn't catch this particular

Re: GCC 4.9.0 Status Report (2012-03-16), Stage 1 starts now

On 2013.03.16 at 14:51 +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote: On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Quality Data Priority # Change from Last Report --- --- P11 + 1 P2 68 + 3 P3

Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote: is it useful to compile gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option? If you want a (slightly) faster compiler then yes. Simply add --with-build-config=bootstrap-lto to your

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

On 2013.03.25 at 06:07 -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de writes: So it appears, contrary to the advice given above, that it is not useful to build gcc 4.8.0 with the lto option at the moment. Did you build firefox/kernel with debug info on/off? Often

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: On 2013.03.25 at 08:06 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2013.03.24 at 20:53 +0100, gcc_mailingl...@abwesend.de wrote: is it useful to compile gcc

Re: Compiler speed (vanilla vs. LTO, PGO and LTO+PGO)

On 2013.03.25 at 15:17 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: On 2013.03.25 at 14:11 +0100, Richard Biener wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: On 2013.03.25

Re: GIt Issue

On 2013.03.26 at 18:28 +, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello everyone, I am trying to clone a git repository and I am getting the following error. Can someone please tell me what this error could be and how I could fix this? It worked for me a while back but not now. I tried the

Git mirror email address mangling

Currently the git mirror mangles all email addresses to something like this: Author: janus janus@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 2013-04-13 12:52:31 Committer: janus janus@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 2013-04-13 12:52:31 Parent: 93ff53d3fe85b302fc6099f14066a533af57eeac (*

Re: Git mirror email address mangling

On 2013.04.14 at 11:09 +0300, Kalle Olavi Niemitalo wrote: Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de writes: To fix all previous git commits on the mirror one may use the attached git-svn-fix-author script. Alternatively, you could reformat gcc_authors as a mailmap file and tell Git

Re: Git mirror email address mangling

On 2013.07.02 at 19:53 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:25:28 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: I've attached a gcc_authors file (gathered from various sources), that could be used as a start. thomas = Thomas Schwinge tho

Re: libsanitizer builds slowly

On 2013.12.17 at 07:43 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:45:13AM +0400, Konstantin Serebryany wrote: Indeed, the compile time is dominated by asan_interceptors.cc: % touch ~/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/lib/asan/asan_interceptors.cc % date; ninja libclang_rt.asan-x86_64.a

Re: proposal to add -Wheader-guard option

On 2014.02.04 at 12:36 +0530, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: Ping ? Patches should be posted to the gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org list. Please follow up there. -- Markus

Re: Fwd: LLVM collaboration?

On 2014.02.11 at 13:02 -0500, Rafael Espíndola wrote: On 11 February 2014 12:28, Renato Golin renato.go...@linaro.org wrote: Now copying Rafael, which can give us some more insight on the LLVM LTO side. Thanks. On 11 February 2014 09:55, Renato Golin renato.go...@linaro.org wrote:

Re: Incorrect generated code for conditional

On 2014.03.16 at 09:20 -0700, Arthur Schwarz wrote: Win7 - 64bit gcc (GCC) 4.8.2 g++ -w -DYYDEBUG=1 -DDEBUG_IO   -c -g -MMD -MP -MF build/Debug/Cygwin-Windows/SlipRegister.o.d -o build/Debug/Cygwin-Windows/SlipRegister.o SlipRegister.cpp There is no generated code for retval = true;

Re: Is there any possibility to parallel compilation in a single file?

On 2014.07.29 at 08:07 +, Gengyulei (Gengyl) wrote: Hi: Is there any possibility to parallel the compilation in a single file scope? For large application the compilation time is long, although we can parallel the process at the level of files, we still try to find a way to

Re: GCC version bikeshedding

On 2014.07.29 at 19:14 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On July 29, 2014 6:45:13 PM CEST, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@libertysurf.fr wrote: I think that if anybody has strong objections, now is the time to make them. Otherwise I think we should go with this plan. IMHO the cure is worse than

Re: GCC 5 snapshots produce broken kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe?

On 2014.09.09 at 17:35 +0800, Arseny Solokha wrote: Hello, I've recently faced an issue I'm afraid I currently unable to debug. When building an arbitrary version of Linux kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe target, it seems gcc prior to 5 produces a good image which boots just fine,

Re: gcc 4.7.4 lto build failure

On 2014.09.19 at 13:15 +0100, Rogelio Serrano wrote: /home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/g++ -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++ -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs

Re: gcc 4.7.4 lto build failure

On 2014.09.19 at 14:55 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.09.19 at 13:15 +0100, Rogelio Serrano wrote: /home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/g++ -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/./prev-gcc/ -B/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -nostdinc++ -B/home/rogelio/gcc-build/prev-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

Re: Devirtualize virtual call hierarchy if just base dtor exists

On 2014.10.22 at 17:15 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: Hello. I've been playing with following example: #include stdlib.h class Base { public: virtual ~Base() {} }; class Derived: public Base { }; #define N 1000 int main() { Base **b = (Base **)malloc (sizeof(Base *) *

Re: More explicit what's wrong with this: FAILED: Bootstrap (build config: lto; languages: all; trunk revision 217898) on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

On 2014.11.21 at 16:16 +0100, Toon Moene wrote: See: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02259.html What's not in the log file sent to gcc-results: See: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/327449 -- Markus

Revision 176335 (removal of #include unistd.h in thr-posix.h) cause numerous compile failures

Revisions 176335 removed the traditional #include unistd.h from gthr-posix.h. This breaks the build of many programs (Firefox, Chromium, etc.) that implicitly rely on it. I'm not sure that the gain is worth the pain in this case. -- Markus

Re: libtool.m4 update?

On 2011.10.25 at 06:39 +0200, Andreas Tobler wrote: Is it preferred to sync libtool.m4 completely? Or do we want to shift this update for a later time? I'm aware of the closing stage one. An libtool update is also needed for bootstrap-lto with slim lto object files. So a complete sync with

Re: gcc-4.6.2 fails to build on fedora 17

On 2012.01.23 at 16:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Hi, Crossbuilding gcc-4.6.2 for rtems targets succeeds on Fedora 15, 16, openSUSE-11.4 and 12.1, but fails with this error on Fedora rawhide (aka. Fedora 17): ... # gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions

Re: Memory corruption due to word sharing

On 2012.02.01 at 16:19 +0100, Jan Kara wrote: we've spotted the following mismatch between what kernel folks expect from a compiler and what GCC really does, resulting in memory corruption on some architectures. Consider the following structure: struct x { long a; unsigned int b1;

Re: Skipping incompatable libaries on a SPARC cross compile

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Mark Cuss wrote: Hi Eric sparc-sun-solaris2.9-objdump -f returns the following: libc.so: start address 0x ... Congratulations, this must be the longest top-post ever. -- Markus

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

On 2011.07.17 at 18:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote: I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower (comparing C bootstrap with C++ in stag1 languages with C++ bootstrap, not sure if that

Re: PATCH RFA: Build stages 2 and 3 with C++

On 2011.07.17 at 18:54 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2011.07.17 at 18:30 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote: I have measured it at some point and IIRC it was about 10% slower (comparing C bootstrap with C

Re: GCC 4.9.2 -O3 gives a seg fault / GCC 4.8.2 -O3 works

On 2015.01.06 at 03:18 -0500, Paul Smith wrote: Hi all. It's possible my code is doing something illegal, but it's also possible I've found a problem with -O3 optimization in GCC 4.9.2. I've built this same code with GCC 4.8.2 -O3 on GNU/Linux and it works fine. It also works with GCC 4.9.2

Re: future versions

On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am confused about the designation of maintenance releases of 5.0. Will the next maintenance release be 5.1 or 5.0.1? I assume if it is 5.1, then

Re: future versions

On 2015.03.21 at 12:11 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: On 2015.03.20 at 20:08 -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: What was the final decision concerning future versioning of FSF gcc post-5.0? In particular, I am

Re: Change to C++11 by default?

On 2015.05.07 at 13:46 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: I think it's time to switch to C++11 as the default C++ dialect for GCC 6. Any thoughts? Why not C++14? -- Markus

Re: debug-early branch merged into mainline

On 2015.06.06 at 18:52 -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 06/06/2015 05:47 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: On 06/06/2015 03:33 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote: Aldy, also at PPC64le LTO bootstrap (at gcc112) dies with: ^ 0x104ae8f7 check_die ../../gcc/dwarf2out.c:5715 Hmmm... this is in the

Re: Precompiled headers - still useful feature?

On 2015.05.27 at 10:14 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: I would like to ask folks what is their opinion about support of precompiled headers for future releases of GCC. From my point of view, the feature brings some speed-up, but question is if it's worth for? Last time I hit precompiled headers

Re: Moving to git

On 2015.08.21 at 06:47 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan ramana@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 21 August 2015 at 11:44, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Absolutely, a

Re: Offer of help with move to git

On 2015.08.23 at 11:36 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 12:26:25PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: One way to do it would be to mine the list archives for not just names but name-date pairs. With a little scripting work that could be processed into a sequence of map

Re: Devirtualization causing undefined symbol references at link?

On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote: > Hi folks, > > (I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on all responses.) > > This is using GCC 5.2 on Linux x86_64. On a project at work I've found > that one of our shared libraries refuses to link because of some > symbol references

Re: compiling gcc 5.x from the scratch: issues

On 2015.09.09 at 08:36 +, Michael Mishourovsky wrote: > At my work I would like to have recent gcc installed but i have no > sudo rights to update the current gcc (its 4.4.7, and OS is redhat > linux). > > So I checked out latest version of gcc via svn, and following > guidelines given

Re: getting bugzilla access for my account

On 2016.01.02 at 03:49 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > seeing as how i have commit access to the gcc tree, could i have > my bugzilla privs extended as well ? atm i only have normal ones > which means i only get to edit my own bugs ... can't dupe/update > other ones people have filed. couldn't

Re: Devirtualization causing undefined symbol references at link?

On 2015.11.23 at 11:11 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote: > >> Hi folks, > >> > >> (I'm not subscribed

Re: Status of GCC 6 on x86_64 (Debian)

On 2016.02.03 at 01:13 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 22.01.2016 08:27, Matthias Klose wrote: > >On 22.01.2016 06:09, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > >>In terms of build failures, I reported 520 bugs to Debian. Most of them > >>were new GCC errors or warnings (some packages use -Werror and many >

Re: [isocpp-parallel] Proposal for new memory_order_consume definition

On 2016.02.27 at 15:10 -0800, Paul E. McKenney via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 11:16:51AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Feb 27, 2016 09:06, "Paul E. McKenney" > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > But we do already have something very similar with signed

Re: Status of GCC 6 on x86_64 (Debian)

On 2016.01.22 at 11:27 -0800, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Martin Michlmayr [2016-01-21 21:09]: > > * 13: test suite failures (segfaults and similar); not clear if the > > package or if GCC is at fault. > > Rene Engelhard pointed me to >

Re: gnu-gabi group

On 2016.02.19 at 12:57 -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jose E. Marchesi > wrote: > > > > > Great. I'll ask overseers to create a mailinglist. [...] > > > > Done [1] [2]. If y'all need a wiki too, just ask. > > > > [1]

Re: Aggressive load in gcc when accessing escaped pointer?

On 2016.03.18 at 22:05 +0800, Cy Cheng wrote: > Hi, > > Please look at this c code: > > typedef struct _PB { > void* data; /* required.*/ > int f1_; > float f2_; > } PB; > > PB** bar(PB** t); > > void qux(PB* c) { > bar(); /* c is escaped because of bar */ > c->f1_ =

Re: Potential bug about the order of destructors of static objects and atexit() callbacks in C++?

On 2016.08.01 at 18:16 +0800, lh mouse wrote: > Hello GCC developers, > > Reading the ISO C++ standard, > > 3.6.4 Termination [basic.start.term] > > 3 If the completion of the initialization of an object with > > static storage duration is sequenced before a call to std::atexit > > (see , 18.5),

Re: diag color

On 2016.07.31 at 10:46 +0200, phi gcc wrote: > While a simple getenv("TERM") to setup the default of the color > predicate before going to the sequence of testing CFLAGS, et the > optargs, would cost almost nothing. If you want a full explanation of the current behavior please read the comments

Re: diag color

On 2016.07.31 at 08:08 +0200, phi gcc wrote: > Hi All, > > Reposting this here from gcc-help. > > > I got the impression that I got colors in diag output depsite the fact > that I got no GCC env var setup. > > The version I used is > CX08$ cc --version > cc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.1)

Re: Chasing a potential wrong-code bug on trunk

On 2016.11.17 at 10:49 +0100, Martin Reinecke wrote: > Hi, > > At some point in May 2016 there was a patch to the gcc trunk which > caused one of my numerical codes to give incorrect results when compiled > with this gcc version. This may of course be caused by some undefined > behavior I'm

git server is stuck

The git server seems to be stuck for over a day. Latest revision on it is r243504. Latest svn revision is r243523. -- Markus

Re: git server is stuck

On 2016.12.11 at 09:59 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Dec 11, 2016 2:41 AM, "Markus Trippelsdorf" <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> > wrote: > > The git server seems to be stuck for over a day. > > Latest revision on it is r243504. > > Latest svn revision is r243

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

On 2017.03.27 at 07:44 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:39:37PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > Well, a missing break is a bug. No? > > Every 'case' statement without exception must be accompanied by > a 'break' statement? Wasting other

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

On 2017.03.27 at 06:49 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns > > > on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > On 03/26/2017 11:45 AM, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 11:27:59AM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > >> > > >> +#pragma GCC diagnostic push > > >> +#pragma GCC

Re: Warning annoyances in list_read.c

On 2017.03.27 at 06:26 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 08:58:43AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.03.26 at 19:30 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 06:45:07PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > > > > On 03/26/20

[RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago. It currently has a hard upper limit of 128MB. This is too low for current machines where 8GB of RAM is normal. So, it seems to me, a new upper bound of 1GB would be

Re: [PATCH] gcc 8: Implement -felide-function-bodies

On 2017.04.01 at 01:00 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > The following patch implements a new function-body-elision > optimization, which can dramatically improve performance, > especially under certain benchmarks. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > * common.opt (felide-function-bodies): New option. >

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.09 at 20:23 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf > <mar...@trippelsdorf.de> wrote: > > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it > > starts collecting, was last updated over ten years a

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it > > starts collecting, was last updated over ten years ago. > > It currently has a h

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.09 at 21:10 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Apr 2017, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > > The minimum size heuristic for the garbage collector's heap, before it > > > starts coll

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.10 at 13:14 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 10/04/17 12:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 12:52:15PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>> --param ggc-min-heapsize=131072 > >>> 11264.89user 311.88system 24:18.69e

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.10 at 12:15 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2017.04.10 at 10:56 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > > > > What are the numbers with 256M? > > Here are the numbers from a 4core/8thread 16GB RAM Skylake machine. > They look less stellar than the p

Re: [RFA] update ggc_min_heapsize_heuristic()

On 2017.04.10 at 10:56 +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > On 09/04/17 21:06, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.04.09 at 21:10 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >> On 2017.04.09 at 21:25 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > >>> On Sun, 9 Apr 2

Re: Machine problems at gcc.gnu.org?

On 2017.04.21 at 09:17 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > I am having problems getting to https://gcc.gnu.org this morning and > I have also had problems getting to the glibc mail archives though the > main web page for glibc seem available. Anyone else having problems? > Of course if this email

Re: gcc behavior on memory exhaustion

On 2017.08.09 at 14:05 +0100, Andrew Roberts wrote: > I routinely build the weekly snapshots and RC's, on x64, arm and aarch64. > > The last gcc 8 snapshot and the two recent 7.2 RC's have failed to build on > aarch64 (Raspberry Pi 3, running Arch Linux ARM). I have finally traced this > to the

Re: git-svn error due to out-of-sync changes?

On 2017.05.18 at 12:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 05/18/2017 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 05/18/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > I just tried to push a change and got the error below. git > > > pull says my tree is up to date. I wonder if it's caused by > > > my commit

Re: git-svn error due to out-of-sync changes?

On 2017.05.18 at 13:42 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 05/18/2017 12:55 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.05.18 at 12:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: > > > On 05/18/2017 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 05/18/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > >

Re: git-svn error due to out-of-sync changes?

On 2017.05.23 at 05:26 -0400, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Jason Merrill writes: > > > Yes, the git mirror can lag the SVN repo by a few minutes, that's why > > you need to 'git svn rebase' to pull directly from SVN before a > > commit. > > > > Jason > > Markus just said upthread

Re: Missing git tags for released GCC

On 2017.05.03 at 09:30 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > Can you someone add 7.1 release to git tags. I guess it's following revision: > f9105a38249fb57f7778acf3008025f2dcac2b1f Everyone can add it: % git tag gcc-7_1_0-release f9105a38249fb57f7778acf3008025f2dcac2b1f % git push origin

Re: RFC: Improving GCC8 default option settings

On 2017.09.14 at 11:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 12/09/17 16:57, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > >> > >> [...] As a result users are > >> required to enable several additional optimizations by hand to get good > >>

Re: RFC: Improving GCC8 default option settings

wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 12:18 PM, Martin Liška <mli...@suse.cz> wrote: > >>>> On 09/14/2017 12:07 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>>>> On 2017.09.14 at 11:57 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, Se

Re: GCC Buildbot

On 2017.09.20 at 18:01 -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 05:01:55PM +0200, Paulo Matos wrote: > > This mail's intention is to gauge the interest of having a buildbot for > > GCC. > > +1. Or no, +100. > > > - which machines we can use as workers: we certainly

Re: RFC: Update top level libtool files

On 2017.10.10 at 12:45 +0100, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I would like to update the top level libtool files (libtool.m4, > ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltversion.m4 and lt~obsolete.m4) used by > gcc, gdb and binutils. Currently we have version 2.2.7a installed in > the source trees

Re: Quantitative analysis of -Os vs -O3

On 2017.08.26 at 12:40 +0200, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Samstag, 26. August 2017 10:56:16 CEST Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.08.26 at 01:39 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > First let me put into some perspective on -Os usage and some history: > > > 1

Re: Regression with gcc 7.2 ? Undefined references ?

On 2017.08.26 at 13:04 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Hello, > > I have been trying to build the llvm toolchain with gcc 7.2 using the > Debian packages. > However, it is currently failing with some undefined reference. > Seems that some symbols are removed during the build phase (too strong >

Re: Quantitative analysis of -Os vs -O3

On 2017.08.26 at 01:39 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > First let me put into some perspective on -Os usage and some history: > 1) -Os is not useful for non-embedded users > 2) the embedded folks really need the smallest code possible and > usually will be willing to afford the performance hit >

Re: Regression with gcc 7.2 ? Undefined references ?

On 2017.08.26 at 17:18 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > On 26/08/2017 13:10, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.08.26 at 13:04 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have been trying to build the llvm toolchain with gcc 7.2 us

Re: Building on gcc112 is stuck in msgfmt

On 2017.08.29 at 12:42 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 08/29/2017 12:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > > (gdb) bt > > #0 0x3fff950e58e4 in syscall () from /lib64/libc.so.6 > > #1 0x3fff94dbbdc4 in __cxxabiv1::__cxa_guard_acquire (g=0x3fff94f26d40 > > >

Re: Segfault generated by gcc-7

On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote: > Hi, > > I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it > is/was all good when using gcc-6. > > The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below: > d_point = *p; > > And a fix for it (with gcc-7) has been: > memcpy(_point, >

Re: Building on gcc112 is stuck in msgfmt

On 2017.08.29 at 12:53 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > On 08/29/2017 12:47 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.08.29 at 12:42 +0200, Martin Liška wrote: > >> On 08/29/2017 12:39 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > >>> (gdb) bt > >>> #0 0x3fff950e58e4 in

Re: Segfault generated by gcc-7

On 2017.08.29 at 12:35 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2017.08.29 at 12:31 +0200, Marco Varlese wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it > > is/was all good when using gcc-6. > > > > The SEGFAULT hap

Re: Building on gcc112 is stuck in msgfmt

On 2017.08.29 at 15:22 +, Jason Mancini wrote: > Been doing stability testing on my x86_64 Ryzen cpu using openSUSE's > (Tumbleweed) "gcc7.1.1 20170802" + compiling Linux kernel source. > Every so often, the build curiously stalls on a futex between cc1 and > as. cc1 is on the futex. as is

Re: GCC Buildbot Update - Definition of regression

On 2017.10.11 at 08:22 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote: > > > On 11/10/17 06:17, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > On 2017.10.10 at 21:45 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> It's almost 3 weeks since I last posted on GCC Buildbot. Here's an update: &g

Re: GCC Buildbot Update - Definition of regression

On 2017.10.10 at 21:45 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote: > Hi all, > > It's almost 3 weeks since I last posted on GCC Buildbot. Here's an update: > > * 3 x86_64 workers from CF are now installed; > * There's one scheduler for trunk doing fresh builds for every Daily bump; > * One scheduler doing

Re: GCC Buildbot Update

On 2017.12.14 at 21:32 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 14 December 2017 at 09:56, Paulo Matos wrote: > > I got an email suggesting I add some aarch64 workers so I did: > > 4 workers from CF (gcc113, gcc114, gcc115 and gcc116); > > > Great, I thought the CF machines were

Re: GCC Buildbot Update

On 2017.12.15 at 10:21 +0100, Paulo Matos wrote: > > > On 15/12/17 08:42, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > I don't think this is good news at all. > > > > As I pointed out in a reply to Chris, I haven't seeked permission but I > am pretty sure something

Re: Announce: GNU MPFR 4.0.0 is released

On 2017.12.25 at 13:27 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > GNU MPFR 4.0.0 ("dinde aux marrons"), a C library for > multiple-precision floating-point computations with correct rounding, > is now available for download from the MPFR web site: > > http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-4.0.0/ Unfortunately it is

Re: [patch] c++/58051 Implement Core 1579

On 2014.06.26 at 14:06 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: DR1579 relaxes [class.copy]/32 so that expressions in return statements can be looked up as rvalues even when they aren't the same type as the function return type. Implementing that seems as simple as removing the restriction on the

Re: [PATCH] Testcase for PR61801

On 2014.07.28 at 10:53 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 10:44:15AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr61801.c (revision 0) +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/pr61801.c

Re: [PATCH] LTO streamer reorg - try to reduce WPA memory use

On 2014.07.29 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Richard Biener wrote: This re-organizes the LTO streamer to do compression transparently in the data-streamer routines (and disables section compression by defaulting to -flto-compression-level=0). This avoids

Re: [PATCH] LTO streamer reorg - try to reduce WPA memory use

On 2014.07.30 at 10:31 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf mar...@trippelsdorf.de wrote: On 2014.07.29 at 15:10 +0200, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Richard Biener wrote: This re-organizes the LTO streamer to do compression

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR56480 aka DR374. Allow explicit specialization in enclosing namespace.

On 2014.11.11 at 10:11 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/08/2014 06:57 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/explicit73.C @@ -7,9 +7,9 @@ // the template namespace N { - template class T class foo;// { dg-error } referenced below + template

Re: Add the latest C++ SD-6 additions.

On 2014.11.10 at 10:55 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: On 11/09/2014 11:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/09/2014 08:33 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: + //cpp_hashnode *node = 0; + //node = token-val.node.node; + //if (node) + // pfile-mi_ind_cmacro = node; Remove this

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR56480 aka DR374. Allow explicit specialization in enclosing namespace.

On 2014.11.11 at 13:39 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/11/2014 10:37 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.11.11 at 10:11 -0500, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/08/2014 06:57 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.pt/explicit73.C @@ -7,9 +7,9

Re: Add the latest C++ SD-6 additions.

On 2014.11.11 at 19:15 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.11.10 at 10:55 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: On 11/09/2014 11:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: On 11/09/2014 08:33 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: + //cpp_hashnode *node = 0; + //node = token-val.node.node; + //if (node

Re: [PATCH] PR36312

On 2014.11.05 at 18:32 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I committed this as r217149. This patch causes kernel build failures when using GCC_COMPARE_DEBUG=1. GCC_COMPARE_DEBUG=1 make CC=/var/tmp/gcc_trunk/usr/local/bin/gcc is enough to reproduce. See:

Re: [PATCH 2/4] New data structure for cgraph_summary introduced.

On 2014.11.13 at 15:11 +0100, mliska wrote: Just two remarks: +template class T +class GTY((user)) cgraph_summary T * +{ +public: + /* Default construction takes SYMTAB as an argument. */ + cgraph_summary (symbol_table *symtab, bool ggc = false): m_ggc (ggc), +m_insertion_enabled

Re: [PATCH 2/4] New data structure for cgraph_summary introduced.

On 2014.11.14 at 01:19 -0500, Trevor Saunders wrote: On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 03:48:34PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: On 2014.11.13 at 15:11 +0100, mliska wrote: + /* Destructor. */ + virtual ~cgraph_summary () + { +destroy (); + } From https://gcc.gnu.org

Re: Drop target_option_node reconstruction logic.

On 2014.11.14 at 20:13 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote: this patch kills lto's code to rebuilt DECL_FUNCTION_SPECIFIC_TARGET from target attributes. This code was never complete and it should be no-op now when we save tehe target nodes. It also makes free_land_data_in_decl to actually anotate

  1   2   3   4   5   >