gcc archive
date index for January, 2010

This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Indexes: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Site Nav: [Browse other archives for this mailing list]
[Browse other mailing lists at this site]
Search: Limit to:

January 31, 2010
22:47 gcc-4.3-20100131 is now available gccadmin
10:26 Git mirror needs a run of "git gc" Florian Weimer

January 30, 2010
19:30 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Ian Lance Taylor
19:15 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Dodji Seketeli
19:04 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Mark Wielaard
17:53 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Ian Lance Taylor
17:48 Re: Register allocation and multi-reg HARD_FRAME_POINTER Ian Lance Taylor
17:46 Re: Question about reworking internals manual Ian Lance Taylor
17:46 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Paolo Carlini
17:09 Register allocation and multi-reg HARD_FRAME_POINTER Uros Bizjak
17:09 Question about reworking internals manual Jerry Quinn
16:10 Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1 Daniel Jacobowitz
15:32 Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1 Richard Guenther
15:28 Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1 Ian Lance Taylor
13:47 gcc version 4.4.3 (GCC) Wolfgang Griech
10:27 Re: Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1 Richard Sandiford
02:45 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Joe Buck
02:27 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Ian Lance Taylor
02:24 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Michael Witten
02:05 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Paolo Carlini
00:15 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Ian Lance Taylor

January 29, 2010
23:47 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Timothy Madden
18:07 Adding memory write to a sparc fsqrts insn k e
16:57 [trans-mem] ipa tm pass and dominator walks Aldy Hernandez
14:28 Re: Selective notifications for new bug reports Ian Lance Taylor
14:22 Re: help on gcc source code odification Ian Lance Taylor
13:58 Selective notifications for new bug reports Rainer Orth
13:25 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Kai Tietz
13:24 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Earnshaw
13:01 help on gcc source code odification swati raina
12:08 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Dave Korn
12:05 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Guenther
12:02 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Earnshaw
12:00 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Earnshaw
11:24 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Guenther
11:09 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Piotr Wyderski
11:09 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Dave Korn
11:03 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Guenther
10:54 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Piotr Wyderski
10:54 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Dave Korn
10:46 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Paolo Carlini
10:43 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Dave Korn
10:40 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Paolo Carlini
10:29 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Piotr Wyderski
10:12 Re: Bugzilla and setting priorities Steven Bosscher
10:11 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? fanqifei
10:09 Bugzilla and setting priorities Richard Earnshaw
09:15 Re: Problem initializing volatile structures Richard Guenther

January 28, 2010
22:55 gcc-4.5-20100128 is now available gccadmin
19:30 Re: Question about IRA (setup_allocno_priorities) Vladimir Makarov
19:20 Question about IRA (setup_allocno_priorities) Ian Bolton
18:53 Re: Treatment of builtin that receives function pointer Andrew Haley
18:03 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Ian Lance Taylor
17:52 Re: Possible IRA bug in assign_hard_reg Vladimir Makarov
16:38 Best -march & -mtune flags for XScale-PXA270 rev 7 (v5l) Oleg Kravchenko
16:14 Problem initializing volatile structures Byron Stanoszek
14:45 Re: Treatment of builtin that receives function pointer Paulo J. Matos
13:13 Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Sergio Ruocco
12:32 FW: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-07/msg00484.html Jonas Paulsson J
12:24 Re: _cplusplus symbol's value Paolo Carlini
12:16 _cplusplus symbol's value koala01

January 27, 2010
22:59 Re: Strange conversion to int64 Ian Lance Taylor
19:08 Strange conversion to int64 Tony Bernardin
16:27 Obsoleting IRIX < 6.5, Solaris 7, and Tru64 UNIX < V5.1 Rainer Orth
14:52 RE: Possible IRA bug in assign_hard_reg Ian Bolton
12:25 Treatment of builtin that receives function pointer Paulo J. Matos
01:47 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Joseph S. Myers

January 26, 2010
23:47 Questions about compute_transpout in gcse.c code hoisting implementation Steven Bosscher
22:53 gcc-4.4-20100126 is now available gccadmin
22:37 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Ian Lance Taylor
22:04 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Richard Guenther
21:35 Re: can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Paolo Bonzini
19:45 Re: gccgo language contribution accepted Ian Lance Taylor
19:13 gccgo language contribution accepted David Edelsohn
16:53 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass fanqifei
15:50 Re: Tree-SSA question Ian Lance Taylor
13:09 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized H.J. Lu
10:41 Tree-SSA question sandeep soni
08:01 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Christian Joensson
07:58 Re: can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Paolo Bonzini
05:33 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Dave Korn
00:13 Re: Successful make profiledbootstrap of GCC 4.4.3 and GCC 4.5.0 (SVN revision 156177) on Snow Leopard 10.6.2 x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0 Jack Howarth

January 25, 2010
22:44 Re: fixincludes Ian Lance Taylor
22:21 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Dave Korn
20:58 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Paolo Bonzini
20:24 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Dave Korn
20:17 Re: strict aliasing violation Jonathan Wakely
20:02 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Dave Korn
19:31 Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Michael Hope
19:31 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Joern Rennecke
19:20 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Christian Joensson
18:57 Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Jeff Law
18:44 Re: what 68k platform config switch put float return values in fpu register ? Gunther Nikl
18:23 Re: Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Ian Lance Taylor
18:21 Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Sergio Ruocco
18:16 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Joern Rennecke
18:12 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Ian Lance Taylor
18:05 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Dave Korn
17:54 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Paolo Bonzini
16:31 Re: Mangled Typedef names in GNU 4.1.2 DWARF data? Michael Eager
15:51 Re: strict aliasing violation Piotr Wyderski
15:48 Re: strict aliasing violation Richard Guenther
15:24 Re: porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Gabriel Paubert
15:23 Re: strict aliasing violation Andrew Haley
15:04 Re: Mangled Typedef names in GNU 4.1.2 DWARF data? Ron Louzon
14:42 Re: strict aliasing violation Erik Trulsson
14:04 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Joern Rennecke
13:19 Re: strict aliasing violation Richard Guenther
13:18 Re: strict aliasing violation Andreas Schwab
12:34 porting GCC to a micro with a very limited addressing mode --- what to write in LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS, LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS and micro.md ?! Sergio Ruocco
12:24 strict aliasing violation Piotr Wyderski
11:16 Re: [gcc] can't build current trunk: ar: .libs/libgomp.lib: File format not recognized Christian Joensson
08:41 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass Ulrich Weigand
01:26 Successful make profiledbootstrap of GCC 4.4.3 and GCC 4.5.0 (SVN revision 156177) on Snow Leopard 10.6.2 x86_64-apple-darwin10.2.0 Olexa Bilaniuk

January 24, 2010
22:50 gcc-4.3-20100124 is now available gccadmin
22:13 Re: speed of double-precision divide Tim Prince
21:48 Re: speed of double-precision divide Richard Guenther
21:32 Re: speed of double-precision divide Steve White
18:52 Re: Question about code licensing Paolo Bonzini
17:55 Re: Question about code licensing Joe Buck
15:07 Re: int vs. bool / _Bool (Was: Re: Committed: Fix distribute_loop) Paolo Bonzini
15:01 Re: Question about code licensing Paolo Bonzini

January 23, 2010
18:25 Re: Question about code licensing Jerry Quinn
17:43 Re: speed of double-precision divide Richard Guenther
17:33 Re: speed of double-precision divide Steve White
17:17 Re: what 68k platform config switch put float return values in fpu register ? Andreas Schwab
16:58 Re: fixincludes Basile STARYNKEVITCH
16:52 Re: speed of double-precision divide Richard Guenther
16:52 Re: speed of double-precision divide Andrew Pinski
16:48 Re: fixincludes Richard Guenther
16:47 speed of double-precision divide Steve White
16:43 Re: fixincludes Franz Fehringer
16:39 Re: fixincludes Richard Guenther
16:35 fixincludes Franz Fehringer
16:26 Re: Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Jon Grant
15:29 Re: int vs. bool / _Bool (Was: Re: Committed: Fix distribute_loop) Richard Guenther
15:17 Re: int vs. bool / _Bool (Was: Re: Committed: Fix distribute_loop) Olivier Galibert
14:21 int vs. bool / _Bool (Was: Re: Committed: Fix distribute_loop) Joern Rennecke
13:09 what 68k platform config switch put float return values in fpu register ? Bernd Roesch
09:02 Re: Question about code licensing Robert Dewar
06:35 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Timothy Madden
04:17 Re: Question about code licensing Joe Buck
04:06 Re: Question about code licensing Richard Kenner
01:31 Question about code licensing Jerry Quinn

January 22, 2010
21:39 Re: Mangled Typedef names in GNU 4.1.2 DWARF data? Michael Eager
20:44 Re: printf enhancement Nils Pipenbrinck
20:17 Mangled Typedef names in GNU 4.1.2 DWARF data? Ron Louzon
18:47 Re: printf enhancement Alfred M. Szmidt
18:06 Re: printf enhancement Kaveh R. GHAZI
17:39 Re: How to make make changes in gcc code Basile STARYNKEVITCH
17:14 GCC 4.4.3 Released Jakub Jelinek
15:17 RE: A bug on 32-bit host? Bingfeng Mei
15:04 Re: A bug on 32-bit host? Ian Lance Taylor
14:56 Re: The "right way" to handle alignment of pointer targets in the compiler? Benjamin Redelings I
14:45 Re: How to write legitimize_reload_address Jeff Law
14:20 Re: Question about peephole2 and addressing mode Jeff Law
14:11 How to write legitimize_reload_address Mohamed Shafi
14:10 Re: How to make make changes in gcc code Richard Guenther
13:24 Re: Question about peephole2 and addressing mode Mohamed Shafi
12:49 How to make make changes in gcc code sandeep soni
12:43 A bug on 32-bit host? Bingfeng Mei
11:35 Re: printf enhancement Piotr Wyderski
11:33 Re: printf enhancement Paolo Carlini
11:31 Re: printf enhancement Piotr Wyderski
11:05 Re: printf enhancement Paolo Carlini
11:01 printf enhancement Piotr Wyderski
00:28 Re: [trans-mem] STM GCC Implementation Ian Lance Taylor
00:26 Re: A question about GGC/gengtype Ian Lance Taylor
00:24 Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Ian Lance Taylor

January 21, 2010
23:07 gcc-4.5-20100121 is now available gccadmin
21:40 Re: Question about peephole2 and addressing mode Richard Henderson
21:07 Re: Possible IRA bug in assign_hard_reg Vladimir Makarov
18:22 Possible IRA bug in assign_hard_reg Ian Bolton
15:53 Re: [trans-mem] STM GCC Implementation Riyadh Baghdadi
14:23 Question about peephole2 and addressing mode Mohamed Shafi
14:20 GCC 4.5 Status Report (2010-01-21) Jakub Jelinek
14:05 GCC 4.4.3 Status Report (2010-01-21) Jakub Jelinek
12:21 A question about GGC/gengtype Alexei I. Adamovich
11:02 Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ? Timothy Madden
06:06 Re: --enable-build-with-cxx vs plugins (Was: Re: Extra regressions for --enable-build-with-cxx) Ian Lance Taylor
01:05 Dave Korn appointed Cygwin maintainer Gerald Pfeifer

January 20, 2010
16:14 --enable-build-with-cxx vs plugins (Was: Re: Extra regressions for --enable-build-with-cxx) Joern Rennecke
15:56 updated code size comparison John Regehr
15:30 Re: Extra regressions for --enable-build-with-cxx Ian Lance Taylor
14:54 Extra regressions for --enable-build-with-cxx Joern Rennecke
14:39 Re: Changing the ABI Jean Christophe Beyler
14:14 Re: GCC development plan Ed Smith-Rowland
13:28 Re: GCC development plan Piotr Wyderski
12:45 Re: GCC development plan Tobias Burnus
11:22 Re: GCC development plan Paolo Carlini
11:17 GCC development plan Piotr Wyderski
05:18 Fwd: Help - as a beginner how to get started to contribute Michael Han
01:33 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Carrot Wei

January 19, 2010
22:47 gcc-4.4-20100119 is now available gccadmin
19:14 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass fanqifei
18:37 Eric Weddington appointed AVR co-maintainer David Edelsohn
18:18 Re: Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Ian Lance Taylor
17:40 Re: Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Jon Grant
17:35 Re: Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Jon Grant
17:34 Long paths with ../../../../ throughout Jon Grant
17:11 Re: C parser modification & questions Basile STARYNKEVITCH
15:16 Re: Non-standard test? Ian Lance Taylor
15:15 C parser modification & questions Nikola Ikonic
15:10 Re: Unknown CPU given in --with-tune=athlon64-sse3. Ian Lance Taylor
14:31 Re: GCC 4.4.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org Ramana Radhakrishnan
14:04 Re: Changing the ABI Mikael Pettersson
09:14 Re: Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Jonathan Wakely
07:49 Re: Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Simon Hill
00:28 Re: Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Andrew Pinski
00:20 Re: Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Simon Hill

January 18, 2010
18:55 Changing the ABI Jean Christophe Beyler
16:16 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? Jeff Law
13:48 Re: Non-standard test? Joseph S. Myers
13:39 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Paulo J. Matos
13:25 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Richard Guenther
13:23 Re: Non-standard test? YuGr
13:05 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Paulo J. Matos
12:58 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Richard Guenther
12:41 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Paulo J. Matos
11:57 Re: Non-standard test? YuGr
11:45 Re: Non-standard test? Paolo Carlini
11:42 Re: Non-standard test? YuGr
11:38 Re: Non-standard test? Paolo Carlini
11:25 Non-standard test? YuGr
10:39 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? fanqifei
10:30 Re: cfun and current_function_decl Richard Guenther
10:25 cfun and current_function_decl Paulo J. Matos
09:59 Re: Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Axel Freyn
09:37 Possible bug: Template name lookup & overloaded functions. Simon Hill
08:50 Re: Accessing current_function_decl body Paulo J. Matos
04:48 Unknown CPU given in --with-tune=athlon64-sse3. Felyza Wishbringer

January 17, 2010
23:16 Re: Target hook definition licensing problems (GPL vs GFDL) Gerald Pfeifer
22:50 gcc-4.3-20100117 is now available gccadmin
20:29 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? Adam Nemet
18:23 Re: GCC 4.4.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org Jakub Jelinek
18:06 Re: GCC 4.4.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org H.J. Lu

January 16, 2010
23:14 Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage Paul Brook
15:32 Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage Robert Grimm
15:23 GCC 4.4.3 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org Jakub Jelinek
14:00 Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage Martin Guy
13:23 Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage David Edelsohn
02:22 Re: GCC and binutils dependencies Ian Lance Taylor
00:50 Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage Joel Sherrill

January 15, 2010
23:43 powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage Robert Grimm
21:11 GCC and binutils dependencies Gary Funck
20:41 Re: how to specify instruction size for optimization Ian Lance Taylor
19:49 how to specify instruction size for optimization cirrus75
19:44 The Linux binutils 2.20.51.0.5 is released H.J. Lu
17:57 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass fanqifei
16:24 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Dave Korn
16:09 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Paolo Carlini
16:05 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Adam Butcher
15:40 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Dave Korn
15:40 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Dave Korn
15:36 RE: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Paul Koning
15:30 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Dave Korn
15:29 Re: Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Adam Butcher
13:44 Slightly offtpic: why svn stubbornly refuses to listen to ctrl-c?!? Paolo Carlini
10:28 Re: Sibcall on recursive functions Paulo J. Matos
08:57 RE: Sibcall on recursive functions Paulo De Oliveira Cantante De
03:02 some infinite recursion in gen_lsm_tmp_name() torbenh
00:45 Re: Any difference between gcc 4.3 and 4.1 in exception handling? Ian Lance Taylor
00:41 Re: Missing optimizations Ian Lance Taylor
00:38 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass Ian Lance Taylor
00:37 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? Ian Lance Taylor

January 14, 2010
23:11 gcc-4.5-20100114 is now available gccadmin
22:50 Re: gcc 4.4.1/linux 64bit: code crashes with -O3, works with -O2 DÃniel Fraga
22:37 Re: gcc 4.4.1/linux 64bit: code crashes with -O3, works with -O2 Jonathan Wakely
22:07 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? David Daney
21:44 gcc 4.4.1/linux 64bit: code crashes with -O3, works with -O2 Christoph Rupp
17:11 Re: multiple defs. of TLS common symbols? Gary Funck
17:08 Re: Sibcall on recursive functions Andrew Pinski
17:00 Accessing current_function_decl body Paulo J. Matos
16:50 Any difference between gcc 4.3 and 4.1 in exception handling? jacob navia
16:26 Re: multiple defs. of TLS common symbols? Ian Lance Taylor
11:23 Missing optimizations Piotr Wyderski
11:13 Sibcall on recursive functions Paulo J. Matos
10:52 How to mark gimple values addressable? Gary Funck
09:44 Re: RFC: cgraph/lowering vs. finish_file for GCC/UPC rewrites? Gary Funck
07:36 Re: Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass fanqifei
06:52 Re: multiple defs. of TLS common symbols? Gary Funck
04:52 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? fanqifei
01:15 Re: multiple defs. of TLS common symbols? Ian Lance Taylor

January 13, 2010
23:32 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Eric Botcazou
21:01 Re: suggestion for ppl and cloog-ppl configure enhancement Sebastian Pop
19:56 suggestion for ppl and cloog-ppl configure enhancement Rainer Emrich
19:45 Re: Target hook definition licensing problems (GPL vs GFDL) Dave Korn
19:33 multiple defs. of TLS common symbols? Gary Funck
18:55 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Laurent GUERBY
18:32 Re: Request for code review - (ZEE patch : Redundant Zero extension elimination) Sriraman Tallam
16:18 Re: target hooks / plugins Joseph S. Myers
16:09 Re: target hooks / plugins Joern Rennecke
15:48 Target hook definition licensing problems (GPL vs GFDL) Joern Rennecke
13:49 Re: target hooks / plugins Joseph S. Myers
13:22 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Michael Matz
12:10 Re: [discuss] Bug in x86-64 psABI or in gcc? Michael Matz
10:35 RE: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? Bingfeng Mei
10:26 Re: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? fanqifei
09:54 RE: GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? Bingfeng Mei
09:32 Help-The possible places where insn is splitted in greg pass fanqifei
08:22 Re: target hooks / plugins Joern Rennecke
03:36 Re: suggestion to use lzma for snapshots, maybe more? Vincent Lefevre
00:41 suggestion to use lzma for snapshots, maybe more? Kevin Hunter

January 12, 2010
22:55 gcc-4.4-20100112 is now available gccadmin
22:43 Re: gcc backend beginner: only -O1 gives 'unrecongnizable insn' error Ian Lance Taylor
21:02 Re: anti-optimization of _DecimalXX by -ffast-math Andrew Pinski
21:00 anti-optimization of _DecimalXX by -ffast-math Roman Kononov
20:23 gcc backend beginner: only -O1 gives 'unrecongnizable insn' error Alex
17:23 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Janis Johnson
17:16 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Janis Johnson
17:05 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Michael Matz
15:27 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] H.J. Lu
13:12 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Paulo J. Matos
12:50 GCC-How does the coding style affect the insv pattern recognization? fanqifei
11:49 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Paolo Carlini
11:30 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Richard Guenther
11:13 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Paulo J. Matos
10:44 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Richard Guenther
10:39 Re: rebuild test of Debian packages with GCC trunk 20100107 Richard Guenther
10:01 Re: Exception object access Piotr Wyderski
03:05 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Benjamin Kosnik

January 11, 2010
23:25 Re: Fwd: OpenMP vs. <math.h> Paolo Carlini
23:08 Fwd: OpenMP vs. <math.h> Jeff Johnston
20:47 Re: Exception object access Jonathan Wakely
19:39 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Paulo J. Matos
19:09 Re: Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? DJ Delorie
18:38 Re: [trans-mem] STM GCC Implementation Riyadh Baghdadi
18:15 rebuild test of Debian packages with GCC trunk 20100107 Matthias Klose
17:52 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Janis Johnson
17:39 Re: g++ and _DecimalXX types Paolo Carlini
17:06 Re: [trans-mem] STM GCC Implementation Richard Henderson
16:51 Re: Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Richard Guenther
16:30 g++ and _DecimalXX types Roman Kononov
15:47 Looping through the gimple for CALL_EXPR Paulo J. Matos
14:34 RE: Possible IRA improvements for irregular register architectures Ian Bolton
14:26 Re: [ARM] Neon / Ocaml question Ramana Radhakrishnan
13:50 Exception object access Piotr Wyderski
13:42 Re: [ARM] Neon / Ocaml question Daniel Jacobowitz
12:28 Re: [ARM] Neon / Ocaml question Julian Brown
12:09 [trans-mem] STM GCC Implementation Riyadh Baghdadi
09:53 [ARM] Neon / Ocaml question Ramana Radhakrishnan
08:25 Re: Feature request concerning bitwise operations Steven Bosscher
07:14 Feature request concerning bitwise operations Wen Li
01:42 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Erik Trulsson

January 10, 2010
22:49 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Richard Guenther
22:48 gcc-4.3-20100110 is now available gccadmin
21:35 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Andrew Hutchinson
21:05 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Kai Tietz
20:46 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Kai Tietz
20:28 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Andrew Hutchinson
20:20 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Kai Tietz
20:16 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Andrew Hutchinson
20:06 Re: Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Rafael Espindola
18:55 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
18:36 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Eric Botcazou
18:21 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
18:18 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andreas Schwab
18:07 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
17:46 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Erik Trulsson
17:35 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
17:32 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
17:28 Re: help on debugging gcc using gdb Jonathan Wakely
17:28 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Joseph S. Myers
17:06 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andrew Haley
17:05 help on debugging gcc using gdb swati raina
16:59 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Patrick Horgan
14:53 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andrew Haley
14:44 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Eric Botcazou
14:40 RE: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Paul Koning
14:37 RE: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Paul Koning
14:07 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andreas Schwab
14:05 Success with MinGW and AVR and LTO - almost Andrew Hutchinson
12:50 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andrew Haley
12:39 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andreas Schwab
11:19 Regression in GCC4.5.0 m68k-elf with r146817 (Author: matz) Bernd Roesch
11:01 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andrew Haley
10:30 Re: Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Andreas Schwab
08:43 Re: dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Jan Kratochvil

January 09, 2010
23:49 Sorry to mention aliasing again, but is the standard IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL really wrong? Dave Korn
23:32 Re: dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Nenad Vukicevic
21:18 Re: dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Jan Kratochvil
21:02 Re: dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Gary Funck
20:40 Re: dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Nenad Vukicevic
19:27 Adding a new GCC Bugzilla Keyword? Dave Korn
19:26 Re: Over-sensitive warning, or some quirk of C++ language rules? Dave Korn
18:14 Re: Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? Ralf Wildenhues
18:06 Re: Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? Paolo Bonzini
16:07 Re: Over-sensitive warning, or some quirk of C++ language rules? H.J. Lu
15:48 Re: Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? H.J. Lu
14:26 Re: Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? Paolo Bonzini
12:17 Re: Over-sensitive warning, or some quirk of C++ language rules? Ross Smith
11:25 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Carrot Wei
11:16 Combined tree fails to build -- libtool version mismatch? Steven Bosscher
11:14 Over-sensitive warning, or some quirk of C++ language rules? Dave Korn
10:25 Re: AVR gives weird error with LTO Denis Chertykov

January 08, 2010
16:50 Re: errors in example on profile mode libstdc++ (gcc-4.5/changes.html) Paolo Carlini
16:00 errors in example on profile mode libstdc++ (gcc-4.5/changes.html) HyperQuantum
15:52 Re: pro_and_epilogue pass ran several time for same function? Paulo J. Matos
15:35 Re: pro_and_epilogue pass ran several time for same function? Ian Lance Taylor
15:06 pro_and_epilogue pass ran several time for same function? Paulo J. Matos
13:57 Re: Deciding when to sibcall Paulo J. Matos
12:11 Use -fprofile-generate get basic block counts Jianzhang Peng

January 07, 2010
23:56 Re: ANSI/IEEE POSIX 1003.1 and GCC (+ Other GNU) Eric Botcazou
22:46 gcc-4.5-20100107 is now available gccadmin
21:44 Re: New RTL instruction for my port Jean Christophe Beyler
21:14 Re: New RTL instruction for my port Richard Henderson
21:06 Re: ANSI/IEEE POSIX 1003.1 and GCC (+ Other GNU) Richard Henderson
20:58 Re: New RTL instruction for my port Jean Christophe Beyler
17:19 Re: reghunt and "trunk" (GCC 4.5.x)? Gary Funck
17:12 Re: Deciding when to sibcall Dave Korn
16:50 Re: Gcc 4.3.4 fails to call TARGET_FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL Dave Korn
12:11 Re: Gcc 4.3.4 fails to call TARGET_FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL Paulo J. Matos
11:55 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
11:46 Gcc 4.3.4 fails to call TARGET_FUNCTION_OK_FOR_SIBCALL Paulo J. Matos
11:42 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther
11:30 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
11:05 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Paul Brook
10:27 Re: ANSI/IEEE POSIX 1003.1 and GCC (+ Other GNU) Takis Psarogiannakopoulos
10:23 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Richard Earnshaw
10:10 Re: ANSI/IEEE POSIX 1003.1 and GCC (+ Other GNU) Andrew Pinski
10:00 ANSI/IEEE POSIX 1003.1 and GCC (+ Other GNU) Takis Psarogiannakopoulos
09:20 Deciding when to sibcall Paulo J. Matos
09:15 [PATCH] ppc64 rs6000_emit_set_long_const improvements Jakub Jelinek
09:07 Question about instruction scheduling and dependencies between instructions in 2 different basic blocks Dave Hudson
08:54 Re: [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Jakub Jelinek
08:49 Re: [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Gabriel Paubert
07:14 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Laurent Desnogues
03:11 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
01:10 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Carrot Wei

January 06, 2010
21:49 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Roland McGrath
20:54 Re: reghunt and "trunk" (GCC 4.5.x)? Ian Lance Taylor
20:21 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Erik Trulsson
19:30 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
19:25 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
19:19 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Patrick Horgan
18:44 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther
18:27 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Paul Brook
18:20 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Nick Stoughton
17:37 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
17:26 reghunt and "trunk" (GCC 4.5.x)? Gary Funck
16:48 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
16:22 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Robert Dewar
15:53 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Erik Trulsson
15:51 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
15:49 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
15:45 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
15:45 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
15:26 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
15:18 [PATCH] Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Jakub Jelinek
13:27 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
10:25 RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Mark Colby
10:16 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Andrew Haley
10:08 Re: threading jumps makes niter changed from INTEGER_CST to chrec_dont_know Eric Fisher
09:59 RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Mark Colby
09:35 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
08:28 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Carrot Wei
08:21 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
07:18 Re: entry point of gimplification sandeep soni
06:45 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Patrick Horgan
04:23 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] H.J. Lu
04:09 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
02:32 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Erik Trulsson
01:42 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Daniel Jacobowitz
01:01 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Roland McGrath
00:24 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Ian Lance Taylor

January 05, 2010
23:52 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Matthias Klose
23:48 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Matthias Klose
23:00 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Roland McGrath
22:53 gcc-4.4-20100105 is now available gccadmin
22:31 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Ian Lance Taylor
22:29 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Ian Lance Taylor
22:18 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
22:08 Thanks for your help! Fleaser Team
21:54 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Matt
21:40 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] H.J. Lu
21:35 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Ian Lance Taylor
21:29 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
21:24 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
21:22 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Ian Lance Taylor
21:12 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Roland McGrath
21:06 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
20:50 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
19:59 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
19:39 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Matt
19:39 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
19:08 Re: PATCH: Support --enable-gold=both --with-linker=[bfd|gold] Ian Lance Taylor
19:07 Microblaze branch updated to gcc-4.5 Michael Eager
18:50 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Ian Lance Taylor
18:47 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int NightStrike
18:40 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Ian Lance Taylor
17:13 Re: threading jumps makes niter changed from INTEGER_CST to chrec_dont_know Jeff Law
17:06 Re: target hooks / plugins Joern Rennecke
16:42 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Tim Prince
16:39 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
16:32 Re: [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int NightStrike
16:17 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joseph S. Myers
15:42 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
15:38 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
15:30 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joseph S. Myers
15:29 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
15:27 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
15:23 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Vincent Lefevre
15:14 Re: entry point of gimplification Diego Novillo
15:03 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
15:02 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
14:28 Laeuft es im Bett) nicht so gut Iris Heinrich
13:46 Re: adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? Richard Guenther
13:40 adding -fnoalias ... would a patch be accepted ? torbenh
12:47 Re: Multilib selection issues Richard Kenner
12:23 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Robert Dewar
11:57 Multilib selection issues Joseph S. Myers
11:06 Re: Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Richard Earnshaw
10:56 Re: threading jumps makes niter changed from INTEGER_CST to chrec_dont_know Richard Guenther
10:31 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
10:23 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
08:59 [Ada] arm-linux port for GCC 4.5 Eric Botcazou
08:46 threading jumps makes niter changed from INTEGER_CST to chrec_dont_know Eric Fisher
08:40 Re: question about replace_in_call_usage in regmove.c Eric Botcazou
07:42 Why Thumb-2 only allows very limited access to the PC? Carrot Wei
07:34 dwarf2 - multiple DW_TAG_variable for global variable Nenad Vukicevic
03:26 Re: df_changeable_flags use in combine.c Jie Zhang
02:10 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
01:17 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Erik Trulsson
00:40 [gcc-as-cxx] enum conversion to int Matt

January 04, 2010
23:12 df_changeable_flags use in combine.c Matt
20:17 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
19:57 entry point of gimplification sandeep soni
16:35 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Andrew Haley
16:17 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Nathan Froyd
16:15 RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Bingfeng Mei
16:08 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Andrew Haley
15:42 Call for participation: GROW'10 - 2nd Workshop on GCC Research Opportunities Grigori Fursin
14:19 RE: Possible IRA improvements for irregular register architectures Ian Bolton
13:28 Re: where can find source snapshots of first GCC 4.5.0 ? Jie Zhang
13:05 where can find source snapshots of first GCC 4.5.0 ? Bernd Roesch
12:17 RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Mark Colby
12:07 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Jakub Jelinek
11:54 RE: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Mark Colby
11:19 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Steven Bosscher
11:06 Re: PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Andrew Haley
10:51 PowerPC : GCC2 optimises better than GCC4??? Mark Colby
09:51 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Paolo Bonzini
09:50 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
05:33 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Xinliang David Li
00:45 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther

January 03, 2010
23:19 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
23:08 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther
23:02 gcc-4.3-20100103 is now available gccadmin
22:54 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
22:25 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther
22:25 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
22:15 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
21:55 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
18:39 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
18:31 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Patrick Horgan
13:00 Re: gcc mirror in Bangalore, India Gerald Pfeifer
12:52 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andreas Schwab
11:22 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Florian Weimer
11:21 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Andrew Haley
10:53 Re: GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Richard Guenther
05:50 GCC aliasing rules: more aggressive than C99? Joshua Haberman
03:49 Re: The "right way" to handle alignment of pointer targets in the compiler? Tim Prince

January 02, 2010
17:59 Re: The "right way" to handle alignment of pointer targets in the compiler? Benjamin Redelings I
17:11 Re: WTF? Gerald Pfeifer
15:30 Re: Please update GNU GCC mirror list Gerald Pfeifer
14:56 Re: Big regression showing up on darwin Dave Korn
08:12 Fleaser Fleaser
02:52 Re: The "right way" to handle alignment of pointer targets in the compiler? Tim Prince
00:12 The "right way" to handle alignment of pointer targets in the compiler? Benjamin Redelings I

January 01, 2010
16:46 Re: Big regression showing up on darwin Andrew Pinski
12:07 Big regression showing up on darwin FX
11:48 Re: gcc-2.95 OK, gcc-{3,4}.X not OK Andrew Haley
11:39 question about replace_in_call_usage in regmove.c Amker.Cheng
05:44 gcc-2.95 OK, gcc-{3,4}.X not OK Andris Kalnozols


Indexes: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Site Nav: [Browse other archives for this mailing list]
[Browse other mailing lists at this site]
Search: Limit to:

Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.3