On Okt 25 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I was also hoping not to have to add @anchor (since some sort
> of anchors must already exist for the Index to work), and for
The indices use line numbers.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4B
ping :-)
--
zhoupeng
At 2018-10-27 18:07:25, "zhoupeng" wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Is there compiler implementions or papers on C to Forth ?
>
>Thank you for any reply.
>
>Best,
>--
>ZhouPeng
Hi all,
I am trying to solve the afore-mentioned issue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87663 and I need your help.
Manuel kindly pointed me to the mailing list and adviced me to add the
maintainers to CC. I summed the state of investigation in comment 7 -
you can skip the previou
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 09:49, Lukas Mosimann wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to solve the afore-mentioned issue
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87663 and I need your help.
> Manuel kindly pointed me to the mailing list and adviced me to add the
> maintainers to CC.
His suggestio
Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches list, not this one, thanks.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 02:28, nick wrote:
>
> Greetings all,
>
> I am getting failing tests when running with:
> make bootstrap
> make -k check
>
> The only code I am running is the below patch:
> From 8c26b03c27912a367af52fd1e4
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large for
the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check. The
same applies to label alignment (from the -falign-labels switch).
On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large for
the platform. But when applied to functions, there is no error check. The
same applies to label
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
>> applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large
>> for the platform. But when applie
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>> I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
>> applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large
>> for the platform. But when applied
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:18 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> That said, attribute problems aren't handled perfectly consistently
>> in GCC. Some result in errors, others in warnings, and some are
>> silently ignored. I've been tracking the problems I notice in
>> Bugzilla (those with "al
What is valid in a switch statement for type compatibility?
I would have expected it to follow what appears to be the gimple
"standard" of allowing types that pass the
"useless_type_convserion_p()" test.
I am doing some switch analysis and an triggering a failure in ADA when
the gimple_sw
On October 29, 2018 6:20:25 PM GMT+01:00, Andrew MacLeod
wrote:
>What is valid in a switch statement for type compatibility?
>
> I would have expected it to follow what appears to be the gimple
>"standard" of allowing types that pass the
>"useless_type_convserion_p()" test.
>
>I am doing som
On 10/29/18 1:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On October 29, 2018 6:20:25 PM GMT+01:00, Andrew MacLeod
wrote:
What is valid in a switch statement for type compatibility?
I would have expected it to follow what appears to be the gimple
"standard" of allowing types that pass the
"useless_type_c
I want to submit some vectorizer patches, what would be a suitable
regression test?
Preferably some native or cross test that can run on an i7 x86_64
GNU/Linux machine.
To give an idea what code I'm patching, here are the patches I got so far:
* tree-vect-patterns.c (vect_recog_dot_pro
On 10/29/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
applied to variables, I get an error message if the alignment is too large for
> On Oct 29, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2018 09:19 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/29/2018 07:45 AM, Paul Koning wrote:
I noticed an inconsistency in the handling of the aligned attribute. When
Hello,
I'd like to report a typo in description of
«__builtin_expect_with_probability»:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html#Other-Builtins
The description starts with "The built-in has same semantics as
*__builtin_expect_with_probability*", but it seems like *__builtin_expect*
17 matches
Mail list logo
