The fortran front-end needs to recognize clog10, clog10f and clog10l a
proper built-ins. Attached patch tries to add them to clog10, under a
new category: DEF_EXT_C99RES_BUILTIN (as suggested by jsm28).
Can someone review this? Is it OK?
Just realized I forgot the ChangeLog entry to go with it.
On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 22:20 -0300, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola wrote:
> The finite automaton used in the pipeline hazard recognizer uses a cycle
> advancing arc in every state to represent a clock pulse. Bala(1) uses a
> different technique: All states were a instruction issue is not possible are
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:15:17PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
| > Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > >
| > > for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
| > >
| > >
| > >and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
| > >of C's general "for"
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
| >
| > and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
| > of C's general "for" not being a FOR loop, the above is a FOR loop.
|
| But this normal paradigm
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Florian Weimer wrote:
|
| > Probably it's hard to accept for hard-code C coders that a program
| > which generates correct machine code with all GCC versions released so
| > far (modulo bugs in GCC) can still be illegal C and exhibit undefined
| > behavi
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > We need to be careful not to to substitute "illegal" for "undefined
| > behaviour". GCC is not a court.
|
| Note that in Ada,
You may not have noticed but this issue is primarily about C and C++
and we're discussing what t
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 07:15:17PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >
> > for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
> >
> >
> >and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
> >of C's general "for" not being a FOR loop, the above is a FOR loop.
>
> B
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We need to be careful not to to substitute "illegal" for "undefined
behaviour". GCC is not a court.
Note that in Ada, illegal is a technical term, it refers to a program
that fails to meet the syntactic or static semantic rules for a correct
Ada program, and must be rej
Florian Weimer wrote:
Probably it's hard to accept for hard-code C coders that a program
which generates correct machine code with all GCC versions released so
far (modulo bugs in GCC) can still be illegal C and exhibit undefined
behavior. IIRC, I needed quite some time to realize the full impa
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
for (int i = min; i < max; ++i)
and i, min and max don't change in the body, no matter what you think
of C's general "for" not being a FOR loop, the above is a FOR loop.
But this normal paradigm for representing a FOR loop does not work for
all possible
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
I am puzzled, why would *ANYONE* who knows C use int
rather than unsigned if they want wrap around semantics?
Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
code which was written in response to a security report. They simply
didn
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > As we have briefly discussed in mails, the most critical part of the
| > issue seems to be what can be assumed for loop variables. I countend
| > that for many if not most practical loops, the variable can be assumed
| > no
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| * Robert Dewar:
|
| > I am puzzled, why would *ANYONE* who knows C use int
| > rather than unsigned if they want wrap around semantics?
|
| Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
| code which was written in response to a s
Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> have no side effects. So if "condition" contains any side effect,
> or potential side effect (e.g. through function call), then the
> compiler should not generate the code for "condition".
Right. Thus we can find a way to avoid generating e.g. functio
Snapshot gcc-4.1-20050702 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.1-20050702/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.1 CVS branch
with the following options: -D2005-07-02 17:43 UTC
You'll
* Robert Dewar:
> I am puzzled, why would *ANYONE* who knows C use int
> rather than unsigned if they want wrap around semantics?
Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
code which was written in response to a security report. They simply
didn't know that there is a p
* Dave Korn:
> It certainly wasn't meant to be. It was meant to be a dispassionate
> description of the state of facts. Software that violates the C standard
> just *is* "buggy" or "incorrect",
Not if a GCC extension makes it legal code. And actually, I believe a
GCC extension which basicall
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
As we have briefly discussed in mails, the most critical part of the
issue seems to be what can be assumed for loop variables. I countend
that for many if not most practical loops, the variable can be assumed
not to overflow and apply the transformation. But we need not
Paul Schlie wrote:
My primary concern is about predictability, and could live with undefined
integer overflow if it were likely reasonably possible to verify that in
the general case an overflow would not occur, as otherwise an undefined
behavior may result. (which I can't believe is acceptable
Andrew Pinski wrote:
But the reason question is why make it an undefined behavior instead of
an implementation defined? This would have made it clearer instead of
allowing the compiler not document what happens. Or is C++
just following C here? In which case it might be better to ask the C
co
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What I'm claiming is that he thinks "undefined behaviour" in the
standard should not be taken as meaning "go to hell" (or punishment to
borrow words from you) or absolute liberty for compiler writers to do
just about everything that is imaginable, regardless of expectatio
Giovanni Bajo wrote on 02/07/2005 12:18:00:
>
> Yes, but the condition is still morally true in the code. NDEBUG is meant
to
> speed up the generated code, and it's actually a pity that instead it
> *disables* some optimizations because we don't see the condition anymore.
My
> suggestion is tha
> Steve Ellcey defined MEMBER_TYPE_FORCES_BLK when he first implemented
> the ia64-hpux port. At the time, I mentioned using PARALLELs was a
> better solution, but this was a simpler way for him to get the initial
> port working. Since then, there have been a lot of bug fixes to the
> ia64-hpux s
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giovanni> Agreed, but my point is whether we can do that when NDEBUG
> Giovanni> is defined.
>
> I thought when NDEBUG is defined, assert expands to something like
> '(void) 0' -- the original expression is no longer around.
Yes, but the condition is still
24 matches
Mail list logo
