Re: Build problem

On Sunday, 29 June 2014 at 08:21:34 UTC, Iain Buclaw via D.gnu wrote: On 29 June 2014 08:16, Timo Sintonen via D.gnu wrote: I tried to build my cross compiler from current head. I got "lvalue required as left operand of assignment" in d-objfile.cc lines 1717 and 2107. Hi Timo, This would b

Re: Build problem

On 29 June 2014 08:16, Timo Sintonen via D.gnu wrote: > I tried to build my cross compiler from current head. > I got "lvalue required as left operand of assignment" in d-objfile.cc lines > 1717 and 2107. Hi Timo, This would be more changes in upstream GCC that haven't been caught up with yet.

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On Sunday, 10 November 2013 at 09:20:11 UTC, Johannes Pfau wrote: In case you need a workaround right now: shared struct Register //Also working without shared here { size_t a; } shared(Register*) reg = cast(shared(Register*))0xFFDDCCAA; void main()

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 9 November 2013 18:17, Johannes Pfau wrote: > Am Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:00:18 +0100 > schrieb "Timo Sintonen" : > > > Now returning to my original problem. > > > > I tested various loops and it seems that write to a variable is > > not volatile even if the variable is marked shared. If I write to

Re: Build problem with latest git head

Am Fri, 08 Nov 2013 21:00:18 +0100 schrieb "Timo Sintonen" : > Now returning to my original problem. > > I tested various loops and it seems that write to a variable is > not volatile even if the variable is marked shared. If I write to > a variable several times in a loop, all but the last wri

Re: Build problem with latest git head

Now returning to my original problem. I tested various loops and it seems that write to a variable is not volatile even if the variable is marked shared. If I write to a variable several times in a loop, all but the last write are optimized out. The only write is put after the loop. Read work

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 7 November 2013 08:59, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 04/11/13 12:26, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> On 4 November 2013 11:22, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < >> joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net >> > wrote: >> Should we expect that gi

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 04/11/13 12:26, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 4 November 2013 11:22, Joseph Rushton Wakeling mailto:joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net>> wrote: Should we expect that git-head GDC will start to require GCC 4.9 in the near future? After I push the fix that you see in that patch, yes. Am I right tha

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 11:21:03 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: For the time being, use gcc-4.9-20131013.tar.bz2 snapshot - that is the last build I've done here (currently all my time is being used up on D 2.064). Feel free to send patches though (see this two line change here: http://gcc.g

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 4 November 2013 11:22, Joseph Rushton Wakeling < joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> wrote: > On 04/11/13 12:20, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> For the time being, use gcc-4.9-20131013.tar.bz2 snapshot - that is the >> last >> build I've done here (currently all my time is being used up on D 2.064). >> > >

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 04/11/13 12:20, Iain Buclaw wrote: For the time being, use gcc-4.9-20131013.tar.bz2 snapshot - that is the last build I've done here (currently all my time is being used up on D 2.064). Should we expect that git-head GDC will start to require GCC 4.9 in the near future?

Re: Build problem with latest git head

On 4 November 2013 10:15, Timo Sintonen wrote: > I tried to build gdc with the latest heads of gcc and gdc > Lots of warnings along the build and the it stops here: > > ../../gcc/gcc/d/d-objfile.cc:2031:52: error: no matching function for > call to 'symtab_node::symtab_node(cgraph_node*&)' >