headers
Aaron Gray | 1 May 2007 05:39

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

Hi James,

> Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin.

I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please.

> $ cygcheck -V
> cygcheck version 1.94
> System Checker for Cygwin
> Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Red Hat, 
> Inc.
> Compiled on Apr 17 2007
>
> (It was actually compiled  on 23/04/2007)

First up I am getting cygcheck giving me :-

Cygcheck version 1.90
Compiled on Jan 31 2007

How do I get a later version of Cygwin ?

> $ ./g++ -v
> Using built-in specs.
> Target: i686-pc-cygwin
> Configured with: ../configure --prefix=/cygdrive/c/beta
> --enable-languages=c,c++
> Thread model: single
> gcc version 4.3.0 20070424 (experimental)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Ben Elliston | 1 May 2007 01:27
Picon

Re: gcov in cross-compile: have a patch, seek direction

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 22:16 +0200, Danny Backx wrote:

> Gcov normally puts the files where it writes profiling information in
> the source directory. In a cross-development environment, that directory
> isn't always available.

So I discovered when debugging testsuite failures on a remote target :-)

> Gcc has support for overriding that directory at runtime.
> Unfortunately, on Windows CE, that is not always easy.

Why, is there no concept of environment variables for Windows CE
processes?  What is the real problem?

> I've patched my copy of gcc to be able to specify a different directory
> at compile-time (instead of at run time).
> 
> I can cleanup and submit my patch if there's interest.
> 
> Prior to that, I have a question : should this support be steered via
> parameters on the compiler command line, or from environment values ?

Don't use environment variables at compile time.  It makes reproducing
problems in the field extremely difficult.  We need useers to be able to
send source input plus a command line without having to further guess
their environment.

Cheers, Ben

--

--
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Ben Elliston | 1 May 2007 01:46
Picon

Re: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 14:06 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:

> > So, I think there's a middle ground between "exactly the same passes on
> > all targets" and "use Acovea for every CPU to pick what -O2 means".
> > Using Acovea to reveal some of the suprising, but beneficial results,
> > seems like a fine idea, though.
> 
> I'm hoping to hear something along those lines at the next GCC Summit. I
> have heard of a bunch of work in academia doing extensive optimization
> space searches looking for combinations of pass sequencing and
> repetition to achieve optimal results.

When I finished my Masters project a couple of years ago, I felt that
iterative compilation was a failing idea.  It seems, though, that I
should have considered submitting a GCC Summit paper on my experiences
with GCC.  Perhaps next year, if it's still relevant!

Ben

--

-- 
Ben Elliston <bje <at> au.ibm.com>
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Tim Prince | 1 May 2007 03:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

angray <at> beeb.net wrote:

> 
> Cygcheck version 1.90
> Compiled on Jan 31 2007
> 
> How do I get a later version of Cygwin ?
> 

1.90 is the current release version.  It seems unlikely that later trial 
versions have a patch for the stdio.h conflict with C99, or changes 
headers to avoid warnings which by default are fatal.
If you want a newer cygwin.dll, read the cygwin mail list archive for 
hints, but it doesn't appear to be relevant.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
James Tebneff | 1 May 2007 04:13
Picon

Re: Successfull Build of gcc on Cygwin WinXp SP2

On 5/1/07, Aaron Gray <angray <at> beeb.net> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> > Successfully built latest gcc on Win XP SP2 with cvs built cygwin.
>
> I was wondering whether you could help to get me to the same point please.
>
> > $ cygcheck -V
> > cygcheck version 1.94
> > System Checker for Cygwin
> > Copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 Red Hat,
> > Inc.
> > Compiled on Apr 17 2007
> >
> > (It was actually compiled  on 23/04/2007)
>
> First up I am getting cygcheck giving me :-
>
> Cygcheck version 1.90
> Compiled on Jan 31 2007
>
> How do I get a later version of Cygwin ?

To build the latest cvs cygwin use
http://cygwin.com/faq/faq.programming.html#faq.programming.building-cygwin
 section 18

You will need to use Dave Korns patch for newlib.

http://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2007/msg00292.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Ben Elliston | 1 May 2007 06:15
Picon

RE: GCC mini-summit - compiling for a particular architecture

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 19:26 +0100, Dave Korn wrote:

>   Has any of the Acovea research demonstrated whether there actually is any
> such thing as a "good default set of flags in all cases"?  If the results
> obtained diverge significantly according to the nature/coding
> style/architecture/other uncontrolled variable factors of the application, we
> may be labouring under a false premise wrt. the entire idea, mightn't we?

My experimentation found that the sequences were highly dependent on the
input programs, as you might expect.  Therefore, it would be quite hard
to choose a "good default set in all cases".  In fact, you could argue
that this is totally contrary to the whole idea of iterative
compilation, which assumes that there is no good one default set and
you're better off searching.

Cheers, Ben

--

-- 
Ben Elliston <bje <at> au.ibm.com>
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Joerg Wunsch | 1 May 2007 09:07
Picon

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> There's no need to hack everything up.  As long as you have bash
> installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on
> *BSD machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash.

That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage of
/usr/bin/time (-f option).  They even explicitly used /usr/bin/time
rather than bash's builtin.

As Andreas Schwab wrote:

> > ...: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash.

> Or (pd)?ksh, for that matter.

Did you try?  Maybe my version of pdksh is just too old, but it
doesn't grok that $((I--)) construct either.

OK, just installed ksh93, it appearently understands it.

Still, I don't see a real need for this in CSiBE as it would be simple
to replace it by the standard Posix arithmetics syntax, or even more
portably by the use of expr(1).  The time -f thing is a bit harder to
do (in particular given that bash's time(1) builtin behaves different
that the Posix time(1)).

--

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Richard Earnshaw | 1 May 2007 10:33
Favicon

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 09:07 +0200, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> As Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> > There's no need to hack everything up.  As long as you have bash
> > installed on your machine, it's straight-forward to run CSiBE on
> > *BSD machines: simply invoke the makefiles with SHELL=.../bash.
> 
> That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage of
> /usr/bin/time (-f option).  They even explicitly used /usr/bin/time
> rather than bash's builtin.
> 

No, it uses whichever time program you pass to the configure script with
the -S flag.  So just install gnu time as .../gtime and configure with
-S .../gtime.

R.
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
J.C. Pizarro | 1 May 2007 11:14
Picon

Re: 2nd quarter of 2007 and no GPL code of Java from Sun.

2007/4/3, Fernando Lozano <fernando <at> lozano.eti.br> wrote:
> J.C. Pizarro escreveu:
> > We're in 2nd quarter of 2007 and no release of the complete source
> > code under GPL is put to the public!
> >
> > What does Sun wait to?
>
> JavaOne, for sure. So you'll have the code in May.
>
> Don't forget they already released important parts of the code, so you
> expect them to be serious. And don't think getting agreements with
> third-parties that provide code used by Sun in its Java implementation
> would be easy.

2007/4/2, Andrew Pinski <pinskia <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/07, J.C. Pizarro <jcpiza <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  >  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)
>
>  >  What does Sun wait to?
>
> The 1st quarter for most companies are just starting today or rather soon :).
> I am serious, for an example Sony's new fiscal year started yesterday,
> April 1st.
>
> So really just wait.

Today is 01 of May, the worker's day.

I've not the code in May, Fernando.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Joerg Wunsch | 1 May 2007 12:43
Picon

Re: GCC -On optimization passes: flag and doc issues

As Richard Earnshaw wrote:

> > That's what I did, but it doesn't help for the non-standard usage
> > of /usr/bin/time (-f option).  They even explicitly used
> > /usr/bin/time rather than bash's builtin.

> No, it uses whichever time program you pass to the configure script
> with the -S flag.  So just install gnu time as .../gtime and
> configure with -S .../gtime.  R.

j <at> uriah 2156% pwd
/junk/CSiBE
j <at> uriah 2157% find . -name configure
j <at> uriah 2158% gtime

CORRECT>time (y|n|e|a)? 

--

-- 
cheers, J"org               .-.-.   --... ...--   -.. .  DL8DTL

http://www.sax.de/~joerg/                        NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |

Gmane