* GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
@ 2005-11-18 8:48 Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 11:26 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 21:07 ` RTEMS GCC Status Report Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2005-11-18 8:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc mailing list
The number of open serious regressions against 4.1 is a respectable 87,
quite a few of which are P3s, waiting for me to categorize them. We
still have some work to do before the release, but we will branch on
2005-11-18, as previously announced, at some point late Friday evening.
Thank you for being patient through the long Stage 3.
I am still reviewing the 4.2 projects, but I will post some ideas about
staging those in before I create the branch tomorrow. There looks to be
some exciting stuff in the pipeline!
I would like to better understand the status of GOMP; is it going to be
ready for 4.2 within a couple of months?
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
2005-11-18 8:48 GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18) Mark Mitchell
@ 2005-11-18 11:26 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 16:24 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 21:07 ` RTEMS GCC Status Report Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2005-11-18 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Mark Mitchell
On Friday 18 November 2005 03:48, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I would like to better understand the status of GOMP; is it going to be
> ready for 4.2 within a couple of months?
>
Most definitely. We have been essentially waiting for 4.1 to branch.
There are 5 modules to merge: library, C, C++, Fortran, middle-end.
The FEs can be merged in more or less independently from library and
middle-end.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
2005-11-18 11:26 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2005-11-18 16:24 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 16:46 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 18:15 ` Mike Stump
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2005-11-18 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: gcc
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2005 03:48, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>>I would like to better understand the status of GOMP; is it going to be
>>ready for 4.2 within a couple of months?
>>
> Most definitely. We have been essentially waiting for 4.1 to branch.
> There are 5 modules to merge: library, C, C++, Fortran, middle-end.
> The FEs can be merged in more or less independently from library and
> middle-end.
Great news. (The GOMP entry on the projects list was just a link to the
project page; it didn't have this data.)
It seems like it makes sense to do the library and middle-end first, and
then the various front-ends in serial? Do you agree?
I'd like to have a look at the C++ bits before they go in, but I'll not
be looking to make life difficult. :-)
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
2005-11-18 16:24 ` Mark Mitchell
@ 2005-11-18 16:46 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 17:47 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 18:15 ` Mike Stump
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Diego Novillo @ 2005-11-18 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc
On Friday 18 November 2005 11:24, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Great news. (The GOMP entry on the projects list was just a link to the
> project page; it didn't have this data.)
>
Yeah, we hadn't updated the status section yet. I added a paragraph
earlier today.
> It seems like it makes sense to do the library and middle-end first, and
> then the various front-ends in serial? Do you agree?
>
Yes. The mental model is something like this:
1- Thread safety changes for libgfortran. These are relatively independent
from gomp and Jakub will submit them the minute we branch 4.1.
2- Library and middle end. This can probably go in on its own, but I would
prefer to commit it together with the C front end. Otherwise, there won't
be anything to play with.
3- C front end. This may need a bit of review, though Richard has not
expressed any reservations about it.
4- C++ and Fortran will need a fair bit of in-depth review by FE
maintainers. I expect these two to take the longest to merge.
> I'd like to have a look at the C++ bits before they go in, but I'll not
> be looking to make life difficult. :-)
:) Yes, we will probably request quite a bit of help from you folks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
2005-11-18 16:46 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2005-11-18 17:47 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2005-11-18 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Diego Novillo; +Cc: gcc
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Yes. The mental model is something like this:
Makes sense.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18)
2005-11-18 16:24 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 16:46 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2005-11-18 18:15 ` Mike Stump
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Mike Stump @ 2005-11-18 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Diego Novillo, gcc
On Nov 18, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I'd like to have a look at the C++ bits before they go in, but I'll
> not
> be looking to make life difficult. :-)
There was one thing I saw that was bad, as I recall, but I didn't
mention it as I thought it'd be cleaned up on the branch. And now, I
can't recall what it was. I'll see about doing a once over of the C+
+ bits and see if I can spot it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* RTEMS GCC Status Report
2005-11-18 8:48 GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18) Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 11:26 ` Diego Novillo
@ 2005-11-18 21:07 ` Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
2005-11-18 21:55 ` Laurent GUERBY
1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com> @ 2005-11-18 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc, Laurent GUERBY, Ralf Corsepius
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The number of open serious regressions against 4.1 is a respectable 87,
> quite a few of which are P3s, waiting for me to categorize them. We
> still have some work to do before the release, but we will branch on
> 2005-11-18, as previously announced, at some point late Friday evening.
> Thank you for being patient through the long Stage 3.
Mark we are trying to test furiously and I know that neither Ada nor
RTEMS is a primary target but I wanted to pass along a few issues that
are being worked by various people. I am sure that this is not a
complete list but covers the important issues impacting RTEMS GCC.
+ PR24912 - m68k build failure: ICE: in reload_cse_simplify_operands
This is a recent regression and a patch has just been proposed.
+ No PR - The Ada tools mangle target names like arm-rtems4.7.
Apparently they don't like the version part. Laurent is working on
this.
+ No PR - The Ada tools end up invoking a cross compiler which is
hard coded to be in /usr/bin. This may be a side-effect of the
name mangling problem and just a default that is being tripped.
We don't know yet.
Ralf if I missed something really critical, speak up. I was focusing
more on "doesn't work at all" issues. I don't see any ICEs while
building RTEMS right now.
The targets we try to build are:
avr-rtems4.7 - C
i386-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
powerpc-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
sparc-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
mips64-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
m68k-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
i686-pc-linux-gnu - C, C++, Ada (to bootstrap the others with)
mips-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
arm-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
sh-rtems4.7 - C, C++, Ada
h8300-rtems4.7 - C, C++
For each target, we have been building RTEMS and a handful of other
libraries including ncurses, readline, and libtecla.
We are pushing at the avr and it won't build right now and we have filed
a PR.
I need to check if the Ada multilib support is ready for us to turn on
and push. Right now, I am more concerned that the target name issue
is preventing us from even getting a hello world to link.
--joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RTEMS GCC Status Report
2005-11-18 21:07 ` RTEMS GCC Status Report Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
@ 2005-11-18 21:55 ` Laurent GUERBY
2005-11-18 22:05 ` Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Laurent GUERBY @ 2005-11-18 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: joel.sherrill; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Mark Mitchell, gcc, Ralf Corsepius
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 15:14 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> + No PR - The Ada tools mangle target names like arm-rtems4.7.
> Apparently they don't like the version part. Laurent is working on
> this.
To be accurate I promised to work on this once Paolo configure
patch is in, because I'm currently unable to apply it cleanly to my
tree :).
Laurent
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: RTEMS GCC Status Report
2005-11-18 21:55 ` Laurent GUERBY
@ 2005-11-18 22:05 ` Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com> @ 2005-11-18 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laurent GUERBY; +Cc: Paolo Bonzini, Mark Mitchell, gcc, Ralf Corsepius
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 15:14 -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>>+ No PR - The Ada tools mangle target names like arm-rtems4.7.
>> Apparently they don't like the version part. Laurent is working on
>> this.
>
>
> To be accurate I promised to work on this once Paolo configure
> patch is in, because I'm currently unable to apply it cleanly to my
> tree :).
Yes. I should have included Paolo's patch as a MAJOR requirement.
Otherwise you can't build a newlib cross target as best I can tell.
Please, pretty please get that merged.
--joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-18 22:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-18 8:48 GCC 4.1/4.2 Status Report (2005-11-18) Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 11:26 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 16:24 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 16:46 ` Diego Novillo
2005-11-18 17:47 ` Mark Mitchell
2005-11-18 18:15 ` Mike Stump
2005-11-18 21:07 ` RTEMS GCC Status Report Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
2005-11-18 21:55 ` Laurent GUERBY
2005-11-18 22:05 ` Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).