Re: Why does linker fail to resolve dependencies within the same .a file?

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

Christian Convey wrote:


In function `uriVideoSources::ImageReader::getFrame(bool, 
uriBase::RasterImage*)':

ImageReader.cpp:(.text+0x90): undefined reference to


If the missing reference is to

`uriVideoSources::ImageReader_gen::getFrame_(bool, 
uriBase::RasterImage*)'


Why do you grep for outputFrame?


j.

Re: Linker problems: dependencies with .a file not resolved?

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

Christian Convey wrote:

But the symbol really does appear to be in the archive:

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ nm --demangle
/home/cjc/csc583-svn/uriVisionLib/trunk/Development/Source/C++/liburiVision.a 


| grep "uriVideoSources::ImageReader_gen::getFrame"
U uriVideoSources::ImageReader_gen::getFrame_(bool)
U uriVideoSources::ImageReader_gen::getFrame_(bool,
uriBase::RasterImage*)


I think that the 'U' at the start of eack of those output lines means 
that the symbol is in fact undefined.  man page seems to confirm it.


j.

Re: 404 @ https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Jonathan Wakely  wrote:
>
> On 25 December 2014 at 16:28, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ links to https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ (GCC 5 C++14
> > language feature-complete [2014-12-23]) which doesn't exist.
>
> It should probably be https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status.html
>

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/ gives me a 403 error,
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/status.html gives a 404.

More links in release change list

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

As I read through http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/changes.html, it seems 
to me that would be quite useful (and interesting) to be able to see 
more information for each of the changes. Links to relevant 
discussion, bugs, papers or patches/commits would make it far easier 
to understand the substance of a change beyond the one-line summary. 
The links on that page are very useful - it would be great to see more.


http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges is a good example of the kind 
of thing I'm talking about.


Regards

Jonathan.

Re: Massive performance regression from switching to gcc 4.5

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

On 25/06/10 06:39, Richard Guenther wrote:
> There are btw. some bugs wrt accounting of functions called once
> being inlined in 4.5 which were fixed on trunk which allow extra
> inlining.
>   

Are these changes likely to make it onto the 4.5 branch and into (say)
4.5.1?

j.

Re: Volunteer for a Beginner's Project: Header-Header Interdependencies

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

NightStrike wrote:

What is gcc's irc server?
  



#gcc on irc.oftc.net

Re: Bug in gcc: assignment to non-lvalue

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

Jonathan Wakely wrote:


I believe Andrew's right and the strcpy case is valid, but you do have
a point. I think this should be rejected:

struct A { int i; };
struct B { A get() { return A(); } };

int main ()
{
B b;
b.get().i = 0;
// int& error = b.get().i;
}
  


What about something like the following?

struct proxy { 
   T& t;

   proxy(T& t_) : t(t_) {}
   proxy& operator=(const T& r) { foo(t, r); return *this; }
};

struct B { proxy get() { return proxy(bar); } };

int main ()
{
   B b;
   b.get() = 0;
}


jonathan.

Re: Function specific optimizations call for discussion

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

Michael Meissner wrote:

One of the things that I've been interested in is adding support to GCC to
compile individual functions with specific target options.  I first presented a
draft at the Google mini-summit, and then another draft at the GCC developer
summit last July.

...

The proposal is at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionSpecificOpt
  



Have you given any thought to specifying --param values?

jonathan.

Re: __builtin_expect for indirect function calls

[Jonathan Adamczewski]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Are there any comments about the name, semantics, or usefulness of this
> extension?
>   

Sounds very useful for SPU code. I look forward to trying it out.


Toying with the idea, the following seems like a potentially useful C++
form of the proposed extension :

struct A {
virtual void foo();
};

struct B : public A {
virtual void foo();
};

A* a;

...

__builtin_expect_call (a->foo, B::foo)();



jonathan.