On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Jack Howarth wrote:
Somehow the recursive make is broken for libiberty and is silently using
the system compiler.
Jack
I believe this is PR29404. IIRC, in addition to libiberty, other
recursive make checks fail too due to using the system (stage1)
compiler.
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Paolo Carlini wrote:
The C library, to which library printf belongs, is not part of the GCC
project.
In that case it certainly isn't a GCC issue.
Assuming this feature is accepted in glibc, you'll want to update GCC's
-Wformat flag.
can convince your favorite package site (e.g.
blastwave.org or hpux.connect.org.uk) to offer binaries for these systems,
please do and notify the MPC mailing list (not me) about it here:
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/mailman/listinfo/mpc-discuss
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
From: Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
wrote:
The patch which makes the MPC library a hard requirement for GCC
bootstrapping has been approved today.
Out of curiosity and ignorance: Why, specifically, is MPC going
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
This is a remainder to not catch you in surprise when we announce
the end of stage 3. Starting Dec 1st the trunk will go into
regression and documentation fixes only mode (thus, same rules
apply as for a release branch). When the release
The patch which makes the MPC library a hard requirement for GCC
bootstrapping has been approved today. As promised, I'll wait one week
before applying it to give everyone a chance to install MPC on their
systems.
You can download mpc-0.8 from either of these two locations:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
That's not an option. That would basically tell you that you can get
away with breaking the rules if you just take the blame. And I just
checked and none of my 12 local patches I queued for stage1 apply
anymore. And as usual there are big hunks
From: Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com
But does it, though? From http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html:
Free for all
The following changes can be made by everyone with SVN write access:
Fixes for obvious typos in ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments and
similar stuff. Just check
From: Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
The change certainly didn't fall under the obvious rule because of its
size. One might argue that 'and similar stuff' covers coding-style
changes, but here again I'd fear of a certain kind of people going
wild and follow the coding-style by word rather
From: Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com
Agreed, but what I'm not at all certain is whether it counts as *in*
ChangeLog files, docs, web pages, comments and similar stuff,
specifically
when it's at the end of a line of functional C code in a source file.
Since whitespace in C has no
From: Richard Kenner ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu
I suspect the web page in question needs to be updated to
more accurately reflect current standard practice. It appears wrong to me
on more counts than just this one (my understanding has always been that
no
approval is needed to fix typos,
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
The release of GNU MPFR 2.4.2 (andouillette sauce moutarde
patch level 2) is imminent.
I tested mpfr-2.4.2rc3 on sparc-sun-solaris2.9 in 32 and 64 bit modes. I
compiled with both gcc-3.4.6 and Sun C 5.5. All four configurations built
and passed
From: Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com
Richard Guenther wrote:
If config.gcc handles both triples the same (*-*-solaris2.10 and
*-*-solaris2.11) then we can consider both at the same level.
Indeed. Furthermore, we certainly wouldn't want to break support for
Solaris 2.10 at this point,
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
wrote:
And do we want to update aix5.2 to aix5.3 in our platforms list?
AIX should be updated to 5.3 or 6.1.
David
For the last two months or so, the AIX reports I see
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
wrote:
So IIUC, David is setting SHELL=/path/to/bash first, then running
configure, then getting an error. This happens because configure tests
that bash understands +=, but libtool
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/09/2009 06:33 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
AIX Shell is KSH.
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
Hm, the mpc configure script actually has
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 11/08/2009 10:29 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
What version of libtool is used by mpc? Libtool HEAD could fix this bug.
Paolo
(GNU libtool) 2.2.6
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
AIX Shell is KSH.
The problem is shell append += and libtool not running with the same
shell used by configure.
Hm, the mpc configure script actually has a check for shell +=, and on my
solaris box it correctly detects that it doesn't work.
I was looking through the gcc-4.5 primary and secondary platform list
to ensure we have coverage for MPC testing. It occurs to me that some
of the OS versions are outdated.
I've included the list from the page
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Should we update:
1. solaris2.10 - 2.11
2.
Kaveh R. GHAZI gh...@caip.rutgers.edu writes:
Please test this version and report back in this thread (not to me
privately) the results of make check. Also include your target
triplet,
and the versions of your compiler, gmp and mpfr.
Wow we've gotten a lot of results, thanks everyone
From: David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com
MPC-0.8 build fails on AIX due to libtool. The changes to libtool
between MPC-0.7 and MPC-0.8 rely on Bash-specific features. Manually
editing libtool to use Bash allowed the build to succeed.
Hi David,
Can you please be more specific about this
From: Dennis Clarke dcla...@blastwave.org
target GCC GMP MPFR
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
i386-pc-solaris2.10 4.1.1 4.2.1 2.3.2
mips-sgi-irix6.5 3.4.5 4.3.0 2.3.2
alpha-dec-osf4.0f 3.4.4 4.2.1 2.3.2
All tests passed everywhere.
what about sparc-sun-solaris2.10 ?
From: Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
===
All 57 tests passed
===
i386-unknown-freebsd7.2
gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD]
mpfr-2.4.1_1
(FWIW, on FreeBSD I have made MPC a hard requirement for the GCC 4.5
port already. I assume the next steps on your
From: Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net
I'm on MacOSX 10.3
MacOSX:~/Tarballs/mpc-0.8-dev ed$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/libexec/gcc/darwin/ppc/3.3/specs
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.3 20030304 (Apple Computer, Inc. build 1671)
The -Werror kills it.
Once I deleted -Werror out of
used, and the versions of gmp/mpfr used to compile it. You do not
necessarily need to bootstrap mainline GCC with this MPC, but if you
have the spare time and cycles it would be nice too.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
From: David Fang f...@csl.cornell.edu
On powerpc-apple-darwin8:
gmp: 4.3.1
mpfr: 2.4.1
% gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-apple-darwin8
Configured with:
/var/tmp/gcc/gcc-5370~2/src/configure --disable-checking -enable-werror --prefix=/usr
--mandir=/share/man
From: Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org
Nothing exotic:
i686-pc-linux-gnu x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Both:
===
All 57 tests passed
===
gcc-4.4.2
mpfr-2.4.1
gmp-4.3.1
Also fine on i686-pc-linux-gnu with gcc-4.5-20091008
Allan
Thanks!
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Steve Ellcey wrote:
I have tried:
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times (byte|data1).*?0x3.*? DW_AT_inline 3 }
} */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times (byte\|data1).*?0x3.*? DW_AT_inline 3
} } */
/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times \(byte\|data1\).*?0x3.*?
(32 - 5)
+#define EXP_BITS (32 - 6)
The following change fixes the comment. Tested with make on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I'll install this as obvious tomorrow if
nobody comments on the patch.
--Kaveh
2009-09-28 Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
Hi,
mpc-0.7 now has been released, you can get the package here:
http://www.multiprecision.org/index.php?prog=mpcpage=download
Here's the official announcement:
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/mpc-discuss/2009-September/000554.html
Of particular interest in this release are bugfixes,
From: Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com
Dave Korn wrote:
Attached allowed it to build,
And with that patch:
===
All 45 tests passed
===
Thanks Dave!
This MPC release may happen early next week. Anyone else have success
results, problems or
a smooth transition
is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
4- Test on primary and secondary platforms. What is the current
suggested list of platforms?
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
That said,
I'm perfectly amenable to moving the new warning to -Wextra or just
turning it on only with -Wc++-compat. I don't personally care that
much, actually.
I also agree with Robert's comments that all warnings are about valid C,
with -Wall
From: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Perhaps the only safe way to create the value, even in the presence of
rounding mode changes, is to use conj(3.I) ?
Setting the __real__ and __imag__ parts of a temporary variable should
always
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Art Haas wrote:
Hi.
I've had no luck with recent bootstraps on both i386-pc-solaris2.10 and
sparc-sun-solaris2.10. The error messages below are from builds performed
after updating my repo this morning.
i386-pc-solaris:
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
From: Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org
I have noticed that mpc is not automatically detected even when
installed in the standard library path (with gcc-4.5-20090604). This
means that building with mpc always requires using the
--with-mpc-lib=/usr/lib flag.
This is fixed by adjusting
If I write a complex double constant -3.I (as opposed to 0-3.I), what is
it supposed to evaluate to? This program:
#include stdio.h
int main(void)
{
const __complex double C1 = (-3.I);
const __complex double C2 = (0-3.I);
printf (%f %f\n, __real__ C1, __imag__ (C1));
From: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
If I write a complex double constant -3.I (as opposed to 0-3.I), what is
it supposed to evaluate to? This program:
Because GCC does not implement imaginary types, this applies unary minus
to 0.0+3.0I
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
1. Consider MPC as an optional library now, install all the code and make
it hard-required only when all the complex math functions are made
available in a future released version of the library or sometime
On Thu, 14 May 2009, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The build went through without any error,
but most of the tests failed in make check.
unexpected failures = 6472 and passed = 52.
Try with make -k check and no -j, parallel testing is broken on Solaris.
Eric Botcazou
To clarify, is it make -l #
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I personally think relying on MPC is a reasonable choice, given the fact
that (as you say) the language specifications do in some cases require
support for these kinds of manipulations of complex numbers at compile-time.
In the past, however, other
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com
That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Anthony Green wrote:
The top level configury suggests that you can simply drop gmp, ppl, etc
into the top level source dir and they will get configured and used.
Does this really work?
It is supposed to. I haven't worked on or tested the ppl machinery so I
don't know what
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
If you are building a non-C front end without bootstrapping you need at
least 2.95:
To build all languages in a cross-compiler or other configuration where
3-stage bootstrap is not performed,
From: Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com
That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs it brings
in terms of complexity of building GCC
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
+# Return 1 if the target supports double larger than float,
+# 0 otherwise.
+
+proc check_effective_target_large_double { } {
+return [check_no_compiler_messages large_double object {
+ int dummy[sizeof(double) sizeof(float) ? 1 : -1];
+
From: Ben Elliston b...@au1.ibm.com
On Fri, 2009-04-10 at 23:56 -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Ah, but cake is only easy when someone else bakes it. :-)
While you're baking, Kaveh :-) could you see if your patch could also
fix:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34818
Thanks, Ben
I'm seeing an issue with the top level configure code. Looking at it
requires juggling m4, guile, shell and make syntax in one's head, I'm
having some trouble so I'm seeking some assistance.
I'm running into the actual problem when I'm integrating the mpc library
with GCC and testing in-tree
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Add a new shell variable in configure.ac extra_mpfr_configure_args. Set
it to what you want to pass to the mpfr configure. Call
AC_SUBST(extra_mpfr_configure_args). In Makefile.in add a line
EXTRA_MPFR_CONFIGURE_ARGS =
From: Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
I've been relaying the messages, (but I haven't seen the MPC webpage
updated to reflect this yet).
Okay it's updated, we've got a pretty comprehensive list of platforms.
http://www.multiprecision.org/index.php?prog=mpcpage=platforms
Thanks
From: Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com
On Sat, 4 Apr 2009, Andreas Tobler wrote:
I've cc'ed others who have access to the platforms in question based on
GCC test results. Please help if you can.
- powerpc-apple-darwin9.6.0 gcc-4.5.0 gmp-4.2.2 mpfr-2.3.1 ok.
- sparc-sun-solaris2.10 gcc-4.4
From: Marc Glisse marc.gli...@normalesup.org
This could be related to a call to sprintf(str,...,str,...), which
according to the doc is undefined behaviour.
Doc? I don't see it in the man page. Got a url?
From: Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com
man 3p sprintf says:
If copying takes place between objects that overlap as a result of a call
to
sprintf() or snprintf(), the results are undefined.
ISO C99 7.19.6.6 has similar wording:
If copying takes place between objects that overlap, the
From: Janis Johnson janis...@us.ibm.com
I get the failure Richard mentioned when I use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fstack-protector but no failures without those options. This is on
powerpc64-linux (but defaulting to -m32) with:
RHEL 5.3
GCC 4.3.2
GMP 4.2.4
MPFR 2.4.1
MPC 0.6
Okay the
://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/criteria.html
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
I get 1 failure on linux-{i586,x86_64,ppc,ppc64,ia64,s390,s390x}
platforms:
inp_str.c:131: MPC assertion failed: n == nread
/bin/sh: line 4: 2347 Aborted (core dumped) ${dir}$tst
FAIL: tio_str
Richard.
Thanks for the
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
I tested on openSUSE Factory which currently has gcc 4.3.3, gmp 4.2.3,
mpfr 2.4.1 and some pre-2.10 glibc.
I tried with vanilla mpfr-2.4.1 and gmp-4.2.3, and mpc still passed all it's
tests on gcc14. Would it be fair to suspect something in
From: Janis Johnson janis...@us.ibm.com
Same behavior with openSUSE 11.1 (glibc 2.9, gcc 4.3.2, gmp 4.2.3, mpfr
2.3.2).
Note that I build with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fstack-protector.
I get the failure Richard mentioned when I use -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fstack-protector but no failures without
,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
From: Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll create a patch.
P... for those of us who just install the latest-and-greatest
fedora/suse/ubuntu/... once and don't change
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I tried to send the message below to the list, without subscribing. It
was thus rejected. I then tried to send it to you off-list, which your
mail server doesn't like either, due to unblock.secureserver.net. Would
you please forward it for me? I
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009, H.J. Lu wrote:
Executing on host:
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc44-4.3.999-20090312/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc44-4.3.999-20090312/darwin_objdir/gcc/
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc44-4.3.999-20090312/gcc-4.4
-20090312/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asm-b.c -O1 -lm
built with g++ rather than gcc. E.g. testsuite regressions,
changes in the speed or size of cc1, etc. Also, is cc1 linked with
libstdc++.so ? Stuff like that.
Would you please consider checking this?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi gh
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Jack Howarth wrote:
The same issue in the libiberty testsuite run can be seen with
the Apple regress server log at
http://gcc.gnu.org/regtest/HEAD/native-lastbuild.txt.gzip.
If you search for test-demangle, you will find...
I'm sure there is
From: Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com
Thanks, I do want to test the middle-end. However I need to do more than
just create the complex expression. I also have to pass it to a builtin
that evaluates using MPC like __builtin_csin(). The fortran frontend
evaluates complex
From: Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I don't think these results are a bug, rather it's just an artifact of
the
way complex multiplcation is done and having these special values in
See bug 24581. Some aspects are a bug (GCC doesn't
From: Tobias Burnus bur...@net-b.de
Hi Kaveh,
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I'm trying to create complex number expressions that contain inf or
nan in the imaginary part. I.e. (0 + inf I) or (0 + nan I).
If it does not need to be C (e.g. to try MPC in the middle end), you
could use Fortran
part get changed?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009, James Dennett wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:52 PM, zol...@bendor.com.au wrote:
I was debugging a function and by inserting the debug statement crashed
the system. Some investigation revealed that gcc 4.3.2 arm-eabi (compiled
from sources) with -O2 under some
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
From: Vincent Lefevre vincent+...@vinc17.org
On 2008-12-13 01:46:21 -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Changes from version 2.3.2 to version 2.4.0:
[...]
- Bug fixes.
Are there any MPFR bugs fixed in 2.4.0 that can be exposed through the
limited way GCC uses MPFR?
The announce was incorrect
,
Are there any MPFR bugs fixed in 2.4.0 that can be exposed through the
limited way GCC uses MPFR?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi gh...@caip.rutgers.edu
,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Geoff Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I found that simply building MPFR in a non-default location (configure
--prefix make) and then pointing GCC at it with --with-mpfr, as in
the installation instructions, causes the bootstrap to fail when first
running xgcc, because xgcc can't find the built
From: Tobias Schlüter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and @option{--with-gmp-include}. Alternatively,
+if a GMP source ditribution is found in a subdirectory of you GCC
+sources named @file{gmp}, it will be built together with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+Library is not installed in your default
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we
require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html
I'd like
From: Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Okay for mainline?
Ok if there are no objections within the week.
Thanks,
Richard.
Great, thanks. Can I get an explicit ack from a fortran maintainer as well?
Regards
if necessary.
Okay for mainline?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
2008-10-04 Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* configure.ac (MPFR check): Bump minimum version to 2.3.0 and
recommended version to 2.3.2.
* builtins.c: Remove MPFR_VERSION_NUM(2,3,0) conditionals
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, NightStrike wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Brian Dessent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simon Hill wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
horrified to see it's not written in C++, and it's loaded with macros
--- why??).
You
From: Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hear, hear. The name of the list is an arbitrary label, not instructions
on what kind of client to use to access the repository; why, just for the
sake of making it correct in some non-functional sense of the word
should
everyone in the world have to adjust
preserving an alias for the old names)
so that they reflect reality?
I would suggest NOT using svn in the list name in case we switch version
control software yet again, however unlikely doing so may be today.
E.g. gcc-cvs - gcc-checkins, (or similar) etc.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
The mailing list webpage still refers to CVS:
http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Can we rename these lists (perhaps preserving an alias for the old names)
so that they reflect reality?
I don't see a reason to rename the list.
Richard.
We don't
this (IMHO convoluted) part of the
bitmap implementation. So I'd rather leave it to someone who does.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: NightStrike [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NightStrike [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
-W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every
, this looks correct to me. (However I can't approve it).
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
Can you suggest a few things to try? E.g. I did --with-gc=zone and a
couple of errors cropped up. If there are other configurations that come
to mind, let me know.
I had these in mind
a few things to try? E.g. I did --with-gc=zone and a
couple of errors cropped up. If there are other configurations that come
to mind, let me know.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
bootstrapped with --with-gc=zone on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Okay for mainline?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
2008-07-04 Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* ggc-zone.c (lookup_page_table_if_allocated,
set_page_table_entry, zone_find_object_size, alloc_small_page
been posted to fix it
and I included links for them in the PR. However they haven't been
approved for mainline yet. I think we have enough time between now and
the Aug 6th gcc-4.3.2 release date to get them in the trunk and 4.3.x
branch.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008, Andrew Haley wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 12:41 AM, Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fundamentally, our philosophy has been to catch errors *before* they get
into the repository. Sure one day of breaking the trunk isn't so bad
relax the testing rules for the overlapping parts if we want
to keep our bits all working nicely.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java if
your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect it.
I didn't make it completely clear
From: Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:41PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java
, using C++
reserved keywords like class in C comes to mind.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
[...] I believe some work could be done (maybe even on mainline) to
activate -Wc++-compat during bootstrap as a warning only, (not an
error). E.g.:
#pragma GCC diagnostic warning -Wc++-compat
This would help clean up some of the easy stuff
into mainline.
Once done we can -Werror this warning and avoid regressions.
Strongly agree. Would you mind submitting the patch for activation of
-Wc++-compat?
Done.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and I'd like to address those quickly.
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like to avoid stomping on each other and duplicating work. Can you
tell me what you've already done and/or plan to do?
I have a bunch of patches, but as far as getting them into mainline
I'm
1 - 100 of 287 matches
Mail list logo
