Re: __LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 09:14:22PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote: > Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >$ gcc4x -c bug.c -pedantic -save-temps > >bug.c: In function 'main': > >bug.c:1: error: floating constant exceeds range of 'long double' > > This is easy eno

Re: HELP!!!!

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:36:26PM -0500, Jesus Christ wrote: > Hello, > My name is Caleb Statser and I have recently checked out the book "C++ > For Dummies", fourth edition. It is supposed to come with a CD that > contains all of the source code from the book along with a copy of > "GNU C++", b

Re: Question w.r.t. `'class Foo' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor` warning.

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:51:42PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: > I would like to ask if the behaviour of GCC 4.0.0 20050301 is correct or > not. I have for example abstract base class like: > > class Foo > { > public: > virtual unsigned short > iiop_version() const = 0; > }; > > and when

Re: Question w.r.t. `'class Foo' has virtual functions but non-virtual destructor` warning.

On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:00:38AM -0500, Michael N. Moran wrote: > In embedded system work, and I'm sure in other circumstances, > it is the case that "placement new" is the norm and destructors > invoked explicitly (never on an abstract reference,) and the > delete operator goes unused. I shoul

Re: Deprecating min/max extension in C++

On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > IMO, if these are C++-only, it's relatively easy to deprecate these > > extension -- but I'd like to hear from Jason and Nathan, and also the > > user community before we do that. Of a

Re: C++ [RFC] taking address of a static const data member

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:49:22AM -0800, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > Thanks Andrew. Yes, standard actually mentions this that I missed. It's also doc'd here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Static-Definitions.html#Static-Definitions jon

Re: Why aren't assignment operators inherited automatically?

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:45:16AM +0200, Topi Maenpaa wrote: > In short, anything inherited from the base class can be used as expected, > except the assignment operator. What's the deal? I'm doing this on Mandrake > 10.1, gcc 3.4.1, if that matters. This question is about C++, not the develop

Re: Questions about trampolines

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:51:55AM -0400, Manuel Baez wrote: > Please some moderator, remove me from this list, I'cant do it Look at the "List-Unsubscribe" header. Alternatively you could have tried going to the GCC web site and clicking on "mailing lists", where you'll find a form to unsubscrib

Re: Compiler chokes on a simple template - why?

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:33:54AM +0200, Topi Maenpaa wrote: > Hi, > > Here is a snippet that does not compile with gcc 3.4.1 (on Mandrake 10.1). > > --- > template class A > { > public: > template void test(T value) {} > }; > > template voi

Re: Compiler chokes on a simple template - why?

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:03:53AM +0100, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Topi Maenpaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The funny thing is that if I change the name of the "test2" function > > to "test", everything is OK. The compiler complains only if the > > functions have different names. Why does the

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:47:56AM +0200, tbp wrote: > Hello, > > i'm a bit puzzled by the behaviour of gcc4 (old 4.0 & recent 4.1 > snapshots) regarding how template specialization should be qualified > wrt namespace: [snip] > Other compilers (gcc 3.4.x, msvc2k3, icc8.1) don't whine. GCC 3.4 *d

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:15:07PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 11:54 AM, Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Am i missing something obvious? > > well, not 'obvious', but that is what [14.7.3]/2 says. > I especially don't quite get why specialization have to be defined > that way

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:03:19PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 12:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > GCC 3.4 *does* whine, and I think Intel will in strict mode. > Can't get neither gcc 3.4.1 to whine about it (-Wall) nor icc 8.1 with > the hig

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote: > On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hope that helps, > Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning was explicit enough (with a hint > about namespace) for me to fix it. :-) It might be eve

Re: gcc4, namespace and template specialization problem

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:02:59PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 01:08:37PM +0200, tbp wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2005 1:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hope that helps, > > Yes, thanks and for once gcc warning

Re: Help me about C language Specification

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 03:30:31PM +0700, thanh tuan wrote: > Hello, > I am a student, and I am studying to build an ANSI C compiler into > ASM. The things I need now are the ANSI C specification ( or something > about the state machine, automata to do lexeme and syntax...) > Please tell me whe

Re: implicit type cast problem of reference of ponter to const type

On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:13:46PM +0800, Steve Yee wrote: > the following code can not compile. is it due to the standard? Yes, this is not valid C++. int* -> const int* creates a temporary and you can't bind a non-const reference to a temporary. You might mean void testfun(int * const & pr) o

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:05:39AM -0700, Matt Thomas wrote: > David Edelsohn wrote: > > > GCC now supports C++, Fortran 90 and Java. Those languages have > > extensive, complicated runtimes. The GCC Java environment is becoming > > much more complete and standards compliant, which means ad

Re: g++, initialization of Array if its is a class member.

On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 05:18:56PM +0200, Wlodzimierz Lipert wrote: > Hi! A little mistake during copy/paste. :) > > template < typename T, int S > > class A{ > > public: > T _V[S ]; > int a; > } You're missing a ';' here. > > template < typename T > > class B : public A< T, 2 /*

Re: Mail. Mail! Mail?

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 03:37:13PM +0100, Bernard Leak wrote: > Dear List, > > Firstly, thanks to Bob Proulx for the helpful pointer to the Debian > search widget. This is a genuinely useful-looking tool. How pleasing! > But unless he thinks this is another thing I should "just know about", > i

Re: Mail. Mail! Mail?

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:58:03PM +0100, Bernard Leak wrote: > Dear List, > > Jonathan Wakely wants me to send a patch (or more than one). :-) > >Send a patch. > Will do, after some further digging and sanity-testing, along the lines > I have already indicated. Did you

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > * I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I > never have sent any gcc patch to any other list but gcc-patches for > approval before, so I also had not done so this time. > > * How could I know that the resp

Re: GCC 3.4.4

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I've very nearly ready to release GCC 3.4.4. If you have objections or > high-priority fixes that you think will be required for this release, > please speak up within the next 24 hours. Sorry for the last minute mail ... It occ

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:05:07AM -0500, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:14:22AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > >>* I wasn't aware about this fortran specific patch posting policy. I

Re: "No matching function" -- not finding copy constructor

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 09:12:38AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 12:00:59PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote: > > I'm upgrading to V4.0.0 and struggling with some code that's seriously > > into templates. One puzzling error is this one: > > > > keyed_obj.hh:159: error: no matching fun

Re: GCC 3.4.4

On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 02:11:24PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 05:41:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > > > >>I've very nearly ready to release GCC 3.4.4. If you have objections or > >>high-pr

Re: libgcc_s.so.1 exception handling behaviour depending on glibc version

On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:35:30 +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > > If I build main with C1, and libf.so with C2, and execute the program so > > that it uses C2's libgcc_s.so.1, it works. > > Out of interest, what happens if you build mai

Re: libgcc_s.so.1 exception handling behaviour depending on glibc version

On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Wed, 18 May 2005 22:02:37 +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > > Rubbish. You've obviously never tried to install two third party windows > > applications that require two different revisions of msvcrt.dll, or even > > worse two random versi

Re: Problems building gcc on my mandrake

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:35:26PM -0400, Mehul wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to build/install gcc on my Linux laptop and I am having > problems doing that. I have read through the documentation and nothing > seems to help me out. I would therefore like some1 to help me out. This list is for GCC

Re: GCC 3.4.4 Released

On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 12:00:17PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 10:15:12AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > And, I would like to ask that our webmasters, in there copious spare > > time :-), work on automatically generating more of this content. The > > bug lists and such cou

Re: Hello,Gnu

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:58:14AM -0700, dk zhou wrote: > I want to use gcc to compile program for windows,how > can i get it? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22gcc+for+windows%22&btnG=Search you probably want MinGW jon

Re: help needed

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 04:22:24AM -0700, sandeep nadkarni wrote: > Hello, Hi, > I'm trying to migrate from open vms to Linux. I'm > compiling programs on Linux which are running on open > VMS > > I'm facing problem with int64 function. What problem? Which function? > my hardware configurat

Re: GCC 4.01 RC1 Available

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050607/ > > Please test these tarballs, and let me know about showstoppers. I downloaded the gcc and gcc-g++ tarballs. x86_64 linux

Re: GCC 4.01 RC1 Available

On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 04:12:40PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2005, at 3:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:57:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > >>The GCC 4.0.1 RC1 prerelease is available here: > >> > >

Re: help using mingw/gcc

On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 11:31:40AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, I'm trying to compile a simple program with gcc on windows and am > getting really frustrated. I've tried entering the commands in command > prompt (no ms-dos mode, I have XP) and Run, but can't get anything, > mostly s

Re: Fixing Bugs (Was: A Suggestion for Release Testing)

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:03AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > > > >

Re: libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2 libraries

On Sun, Jun 19, 2005 at 06:49:32PM -0400, Bill wrote: > Below is the error I receive when attempting to run a newly installed > version of netscape 4.79 on centOS 4.0 (RHEL 3), which is my personal > computer at home. This is the only browser that works on linux that is > compatible with the Thori

Re: sizeof() function parameter array: known problem?

On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 10:45:19AM +0200, Etienne Lorrain wrote: > The result of this funtion is 1, is there a C lawyer around? The parameter is treated as unsigned* since an array is converted to a pointer when passed through a function. C99 says in 6.7.5.3: [#7] A declaration of a parame

Re: Calling a pure virtual function

On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 08:41:47PM +1000, Adam Nielsen wrote: > Hi all, > > I was expecting the following code snippet to work, so am I doing > something wrong, or is there an issue with GCC? I was under the > impression that this is allowed, according to > http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/

Re: gcc 4.0.1 testsuite failures on sparc64-linux: 59 unexpected gcc failures

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:20:16PM +0200, Christian Joensson wrote: > On 7/12/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/12/05, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Joe Buck reports the same problems on SPARC/Solaris: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07

Re: gcc 4.0.1 testsuite failures on sparc64-linux: 59 unexpected gcc failures

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:23:23PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Hello, > > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 12:20:16PM +0200, Christian Joensson wrote: > > > >>On 7/12/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libstdc++ required binutils version [was: Re: gcc 4.0.1 testsuite failures on sparc64-linux: 59 unexpected gcc failures]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 01:55:11PM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >>On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> > >>>The minimum binutils for libstdc++ is now 2.15.90.0.1.1, I don't know > >>>

Re: volatile semantics

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:29:11PM -0400, Paul Schlie wrote: > > Note that I'm explicitly not taking a position on what the standard says. > > The standard is notoriously incomplete with respect to object model issues, > > including volatility, so I think that trying particularly hard to parse its

Re: No download link from gcc.gnu.org

bhiksha wrote: > I simply cannot find any direct link to a downloadable source/binary > bundle for gcc4 from > gcc.gnu.org. Starting from the home page: "releases", "mirror sites", pick a mirror. Or "GCC 4.0.1 has been released.", where it tells you it is available from the mirror sites, then

Re: ISO C++ forbids initialization in array new?

WU Yongwei wrote: > Well, I see this in the gcc error message. Can someone here kindly > point to me which part of the Standard specified this behaviour? I > thought it should be in 5.3.4, but was not able to find the words > there. It might be better if the error message said "non-default init

Re: ISO C++ forbids initialization in array new?

Jonathan Wakely wrote: > WU Yongwei wrote: > > > Well, I see this in the gcc error message. Can someone here kindly > > point to me which part of the Standard specified this behaviour? I > > thought it should be in 5.3.4, but was not able to find the words > > the

Bugzilla error

I like the new theme, by the way. I've just tried to add a comment to a bug I created yesterday and got this error: Unknown Known To Work Version 3.3.3 is not a known version for use in the known to work field. The legal versions are listed in the version popup. I've been able to a

Re: Wishlish: GCC option for explicit booleans

Peter Lupton NCH Swift Sound wrote: > But I have been going through other reports from the 'bug book' which I ask > my programmers to log. Another case which explicit bools would solve would > be (in Win32)... > > HANDLE hFile = CreateFile(...); > if (!hFile) return; > > If t

Re: Speed impact of virtual inheritance

Frans Englich wrote: > In a large project I'm participating in, a design dilemma have arrived. > Adding > virtual inheritance would solve it beautifully on the source code level, but > a potential drawback is the speed penalty it brings. Measurement is always > the way of approaching performan

Re: specific instantiation of static members from template class

cedric wrote: > > hello, I have a problem when I try to instantiate static members. this code > works with gcc-3.4.5 but not with gcc-4.0.2 (debian sid). > here a test case with 3 files : > > > / main.cpp > #include > #include "Test.h" > > int main(int argc, char **argv) > { > std:

Wiki pages on tests cases

Why are there two separate wiki pages on test case writing? http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HowToPrepareATestcase http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/TestCaseWriting The second one seems fairly gfortran-specific, but doesn't mention that fact anywhere. If the second page adds info that is generally useful to the w

Re: matching function for out_waiting in gcc 3.4.2

Hi, this question is not about development of GCC so should be moved to either [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] - I suggest the former. Please send any other replies to the libstdc++ list, thanks. On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 02:03:21PM +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have moved to gcc vers

Re: Wiki pages on tests cases

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:45:41AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote: > On 11/27/05, Jonathan Wakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yes, I know it's a wiki and I can do this myself, but I only have so > > much spare time and maybe the second one was added for a good reason. > &

Re: htsearch broken?

On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 08:40:24PM -0800, Will L (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: > > Try search Nabble, the gcc user list is archived here: > http://www.nabble.com/gcc---General-f1157.html Please note this is NOT, I repeat NOT, a GCC users list - this is a GCC developers list. There have been sever

Re: funny problem with g++

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:50:49PM +, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > > IMHO, this is a good extension, at least until boost::array gets > standardised. #include in GCC 4.0 jon

Missing GNAT docs (was Broken Links on Your Online Docs Web Page?)

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:28:26AM -0800, Chris Miller wrote: > > On your online docs web page (http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/), all the links > for GCC 3.4.5 GNAT User's Guide bring up a message that the page cannot be > found. > > The paths for the links look consistent in their format to other

Re: contrib/gcc_update does not work

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:22, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > gcc_update, when called from newly initialized and pulled tree does not work: Initialized how? If you do a 'git clone' then it correctly checks out master and sets it to track origin/master. > > --cut here-- > $ contrib/gcc_update > Updating G

Re: contrib/gcc_update does not work

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 10:38, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:34 AM Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:22, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > > > gcc_update, when called from newly initialized and pulled tree does n

Re: git conversion in progress

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 11:37, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > Am 14.01.20 um 12:34 schrieb Andreas Schwab: > > On Jan 14 2020, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > >> git clone --reference original-gcc ... > > > > Don't use --reference. It is too easy to lose work if you don't know > > what you are doing. >

Re: contrib/gcc_update does not work

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 12:46, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jan 14 2020, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:10 AM Richard Biener > > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Wakely > >> wrote: > >>

Re: git conversion in progress

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 14:28, Martin Jambor wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Jan 14 2020, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jan 14 2020, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > >> git clone --reference original-gcc ... > > > > Don't use --reference. It is too easy to lose work if you don't know > > what you are doing

Re: Help with new GCC git workflow...

On 14/01/20 10:07 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: As somewhat of a git newbie and given gcc developers will do a git push of our changes rather than employing a git pull development model, I'd like a little hand holding on what my new gcc git workflow should be, so I don't screw up the upstream repo

Re: Help with new GCC git workflow...

On 14/01/20 17:05 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 14/01/20 10:07 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote: As somewhat of a git newbie and given gcc developers will do a git push of our changes rather than employing a git pull development model, I'd like a little hand holding on what my new gcc git wor

Re: Help with new GCC git workflow...

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 08:40, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:51 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote: > > > > Peter Bergner : > > > At this point, I get a little confused. :-) I know to submit my patch > > > for review, I'll want to squash my commits down into one patch, but how > > > d

Re: [RFC] add push/pop pragma to control the scope of "using"

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 08:15, 马江 wrote: > > Hello, > After some google, I find there is no way to control the scope of > "using" for the moment. This seems strange as we definitely need this > feature especially when writing inline member functions in c++ > headers. > > Currently I am trying

Re: Help with new GCC git workflow...

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 09:49, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:33 AM Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 08:40, Richard Biener > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:51 PM Eric S. Raymond wrote:

Re: 1-800-GIT-HELP question

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 10:14, Gaius Mulley wrote: > > > Hello, > > Firstly many thanks to all who have worked on the git migration and also > for the offer of help :-) > > I'm seeking a little advice on an efficient way to combine the gm2 git > repro with the gcc git repro. When gcc was using sub

Re: 1-800-GIT-HELP question

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 11:21, Gaius Mulley wrote: > > Andrew Pinski writes: > > > > > One thing which you could do is kinda of what glibc did when they > > merged glibc and glibc-ports. > > Really it would useful if you get GM2 into the base sources of gcc > > instead for GCC 11 :). > > Hello, >

Re: [RFC] add push/pop pragma to control the scope of "using"

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Jiang Ma wrote: > > Thanks for the kindly reply! > > It would create a non-standard, non-portable dialect of C++. We prefer > > to avoid adding non-standard extensions these days. You could propose > >it to the C++ committee, but I'm pretty sure they would not want s

Re: git conversion in progress

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 09:55, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > Am 11.01.20 um 02:18 schrieb Joseph Myers: > > I encourage people to continue to work on improving the documentation for > > using git with GCC > > Hi, the front page reads "Our sources are readily and freely available > via SVN...", simila

Re: Updating "regression hunting" to the Git world (was: [wwwdocs] Adjustments of "regression hunting" instructions to the post-SVN world.)

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 13:07, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020, Gerald Pfeifer wrote (on gcc-patches@): > > With Git a clone carries the whole repository, so remove instructions > > on obtaining a local copy of the repository and related instructions > > on SVN usage. > > I just update

Re: git: remote: *** The first line of a commit message should be a short description of the change, not a single word.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 16:03, Martin Liška wrote: > > Can you please remove the hook for user branches likes: > > $ git push origin me/filter-non-common > Enumerating objects: 27, done. > Counting objects: 100% (27/27), done. > Delta compression using up to 16 threads > Compressing objects: 100% (

Re: git: remote: *** The first line of a commit message should be a short description of the change, not a single word.

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 17:06, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:52 AM Richard Earnshaw (lists) < > richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 21/01/2020 16:43, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > > On 1/21/20 11:38 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >

Re: GCC Multi-Threading Ideas

On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 03:39, Nicholas Krause wrote: > Sorry for the second message Allan but make -j does not scale well > beyond 4 or > 8 threads and that's considering a 4 core or 8 machine. The problem has to > do with large build machines with CPUs with more cores than this or as > is becomin

Re: Merges from release branches to vendor tracking branches

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 23:15, Peter Bergner wrote: > > On 1/23/20 12:09 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: > > On 1/23/20 4:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> so it is not a fast forward merge and we have the requirement that > >> From-SVN: shouldn't appear in commit logs of new commits. > > > > So I just did

Re: [PATCH] wwwdocs: document scripts to access personal and vendor spaces

ur personal space by running git fetch me Isn't that the right command even if you only have one clone? commit 182ab16b43b0b40b985e0678891b29debef2c9a2 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Fri Jan 24 10:59:14 2020 + Fix typos in gitwrite.html diff --git a/htdocs/gitwrite.html b/htdoc

Re: Wrong GCC PR2020 annotated for "[committed, libgomp,amdgcn] Fix plugin-gcn.c bug"

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 16:57, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > Indeed, PR2019 has a number of unrelated commits referenced, and pr2018 > has one too. The years before that appear to have escaped the problem. The 2019 ones are even more silly, as the unrelated commits were correcting the PR number in some fi

Re: [PATCH] wwwdocs: document scripts to access personal and vendor spaces

On 24/01/20 11:48 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 24/01/2020 11:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/01/20 16:23 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 21/01/2020 18:58, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: This patch documents some of the scripts that I've published for managin

Re: [PATCH] wwwdocs: document scripts to access personal and vendor spaces

On 24/01/20 13:55 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 24/01/2020 12:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/01/20 11:48 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 24/01/2020 11:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/01/20 16:23 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 21/01/2020 18:58, Richard

Re: [PATCH] wwwdocs: document scripts to access personal and vendor spaces

On 24/01/20 15:09 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/01/20 13:55 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 24/01/2020 12:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 24/01/20 11:48 +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: On 24/01/2020 11:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 23/01/20 16:23 +, Richard Earnshaw

Re: SSA Iterators

On Thu, 30 Jan 2020, 05:44 Nicholas Krause wrote: > > Greetings, > > I was looking into starting to cleaning up the SSA trees for various > reasons and iterators > seem to be the easiest to do. I searched the list to see if someone > mentioned it before > and I ran across this: > https://gcc.gnu.or

Re: [PATCH, v3] wwwdocs: e-mail subject lines for contributions

On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 at 14:00, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: > Where does your '50 chars' limit come from? It's not in the glibc text, > and it's not in the linux kernel text either. AFAICT this is your > invention and you seem to be the only person proposing it. It's a fairly well established c

Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:01, Richard Biener wrote: > So do you have a script that takes a commit with a ChangeLog at its end > and populates the appropriate ChangeLog files? I'm trying to come up with > one to make the process less manual ... it's definitely a part that requires > more typing comp

Re: C++ 20

On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 15:50, Paul Deitel wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there a docker container for the current development version of GCC 10? This question would be more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list. The GCC project doesn't provide pre-built binaries or packages of any kind. The rawhide ima

Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry

On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 at 09:20, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:25 PM Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > Instead of "git am" I had "patch -p1 <", distributing the changelog parts > > I just did in vi (as with git), then "svn ci", which pick up all modified > > files directly (someti

Re: Git ChangeLog policy for GCC Testsuite inquiry

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 19:58, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 09:46:53AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 10:08:25AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > With Git you can't really have unwanted local commits present in a > &

Re: Eagerly evaluate __atomic_is_lock_free to 0 for oversized types

On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 04:34, Fangrui Song wrote: > > GCC never evaluates __atomic_is_lock_free to 0. > (gcc/builtins.c:fold_builtin_atomic_always_lock_free) > I'd like to change clang to eagerly evaluate __atomic_is_lock_free to 0 for > apparently oversized types. > This helps some platforms to

Re: update github gcc mirror forks to the new repo?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2020 at 06:38, Dennis Luehring wrote: > > so the github gcc mirror is already using the new reposurgeon based git > repo, > > that means that all the commit hashes etc. are different if someone > forked this gcc mirror > > so easy pulling from the mirror isn't possible anymore - or a

Re: ABI compatibility: GCC9 vs GCC10

On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 05:57, Jason Mancini wrote: > > Any notable ABI changes from 9 to 10? Any such changes will be documented at https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/changes.html

Re: Hey, spotted an out-of-date reference on gcc.gnu.org

You keep talking about a broken link without telling us where it is. But I don't think we're interested anyway, that's why nobody has replied. On Mon, 24 Feb 2020 at 12:24, Richard @ Quality Nonsense PR Team wrote: > > Dear GCC Team, > > Just checking in one last time to make sure we don't get

Re: GCC Bugzilla (and other) timeouts

On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:25, Martin Sebor wrote: > > Bugzilla has been slow lately, and today to the point of timing out > (I see the same problem with Git). This seems to be a recurring theme > around the time of a GCC release. Is anyone else experiencing this > problem and if so, does anyone k

Re: GCC Bugzilla (and other) timeouts

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Jason Merrill wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:39 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 18:25, Martin Sebor wrote: >> > >> > Bugzilla has been slow lately, and today to the point of timing out >> > (

Re: issue with GDB python pretty-printers for libstdc++

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:32, Paul Smith wrote: > > Hi all. I was seeing a strange error in GDB (8.2.1) debugging some C++ > code while trying to print a value. The pretty printer was throwing Python > exceptions. > > Debugging it I discovered the problem, which is here (from GCC 9.2): > > libst

Re: issue with GDB python pretty-printers for libstdc++

On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 17:01, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 14:32, Paul Smith wrote: > > > > Hi all. I was seeing a strange error in GDB (8.2.1) debugging some C++ > > code while trying to print a value. The pretty printer was throwi

Re: Binaries page modifications

t; text on the front page of bullfreeware.com says "appplication". commit 4fd9efc8877814e8cda506563d0282a267c562c8 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Thu Feb 27 08:42:05 2020 + doc: Update description of BullFreeware * doc/install.texi (Binaries): Update description o

Re: Make LTO Patch for Job Server Thread Detection Agnostic

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 06:50, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > Greetings Martin, > > This patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=blobdiff;f=gcc/lto-wrapper.c;h=353187c60434f43a445e708dcfbf53c857f8cdc1;hp=946897726d03716f7c93f955c438ee4f8190044c;hb=f12fbeb535f192f742025cc4f9b69a48136730f1;hpb=80c7

Re: Make LTO Patch for Job Server Thread Detection Agnostic

On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 16:18, Nicholas Krause wrote: > > > > On 2/27/20 3:44 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2020 at 06:50, Nicholas Krause wrote: > >> Greetings Martin, > >> > >> This patch: > >> https://gcc.g

Re: what is the post price of this sites?https://gcc.gnu.org/

On 28/02/20 19:34 +1300, maticulous wrote: I can assure you that the website @gnu.org or any domains associated with gnu.org are not for sale. If you want to negotiate you should probably contact GNU directly. They're not trying to buy the domain, they're asking what we charge for somebody to p

Re: Status of C++11 Move and Using Unique_Ptr

On Sun, 1 Mar 2020 at 20:24, Nicholas Krause wrote: > I'm not sure of the current status of the C++11 > move We're in the middle of GCC 10's stage 4 and not doing anything like that now. As has been said several times, it's in scope for GCC 11, but not before.

Re: Fwd: Legal Prerequisites contributions

On 01/03/20 14:37 +0100, Michael de Lang wrote: Dear Sir/Madam, I'm working on implementing pr0980r1 and people in the #gcc channel told me to get the legal process started asap. I am willing to sign copyright assignments as outlayed on https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html Met vriendelijke groet

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >