Joe Buck wrote:
Another extra function people sometimes complain about is the two copies
of the constructor: the in-charge version is for constructing an instance
of the class, and the not-in-charge version is for initializing the base
portion of a derived class. Getting rid of the not-in-charg
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 07:09:21PM +0200, Tommy Vercetti wrote:
> I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and
> probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it
> suppose to be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc
> simply not generate
On Sep 23, 2005, at 5:30 PM, Ilya Lipovsky wrote:
Hello all,
I am asking this, because we're having some problems with those
builtins inlining instructions properly when a certain level of logic
complexity (in loops) arises. Even worse, gcc 4.0 (both 4.0.0 and
4.0.1) generates bad code (whe
Hello all,
I am an active AltiVec PPC assembly programmer, but until recently have
not been using gcc's AltiVec extensions.
However, lately, with a project I am contributing to, called "macstl"
(www.pixelglow.com/macstl/), I've become involved in using this stuff.
So there is my question: w
On Friday, September 23, 2005, at 08:31 AM, Andrew Morrow wrote:
If I look at the assembly listings in thunk32.s and visibility32.s I
see the same listing that defines __i686.get_pc_thunk.bx in both
files:
.section
.gnu.linkonce.t.__i686.get_pc_thunk.bx,"ax",@progbits
.globl __
On Sep 23, 2005, at 12:41 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
/* Avoid creating invalid subregs, for example when
simplifying (x>>32)&255. */
! if (final_word >= GET_MODE_SIZE (
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
> /* Avoid creating invalid subregs, for example when
> simplifying (x>>32)&255. */
> ! if (final_word >= GET_MODE_SIZE (inner_mode)
> ! || (final_word % GE
> "Dave" == Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dave> What version of CVS are you using, and does it speak the "-X"
Dave> option (new in 1.12.x)?
Dave> http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/cvs-1.12.12/cvs_16.html#SEC155
By my reading the -X option requires 1.12 to be running on the server
as well
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>>to libstdc++ is the only obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you
>>investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP.
>
>
> I'm on it.
Thanks!
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
> to libstdc++ is the only obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you
> investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP.
I'm on it.
-benjamin
On 9/23/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Joensson wrote:
>
> > FAIL: g++.dg/other/profile1.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/profile1.C (test for excess errors)
> > XPASS: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test
> > FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.robert
Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:
(auroralinux corona + rathann's and rzm's FC3 updates)
binutils-2.16.91.0.2-4.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.3-22.sparc.sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.41.sparc.sparc
glibc-2.3.5-0.fc3.1
On Sep 22, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I will pull a patch together tomorrow. There is currently nothing
in the code for keeping the region stuff up to date as changes are
made to the cfg. For most changes this would not be hard, but for
some it is really hard.
OK. I've cod
Hi list
I was told that gcc by default, for every class creates operator =, and
probably something else. This makes binary file bit larger than it suppose to
be. Is it true, and if so, why this is the case ? Can gcc simply not generate
that operator?
--
Vercetti
Christian Joensson wrote:
> FAIL: g++.dg/other/profile1.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/profile1.C (test for excess errors)
> XPASS: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb83.C (test for excess errors)
Do you have g++.log output fo
Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > The GCC 4.0.2 RC3 prerelease is spinning now.
>
> Regressions on Solaris 2.6, 7, 8 and 9:
> FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_allocate_big_per_type.cc execution test
> FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_delete.cc execution test
> FAIL: ext/mt_allocator/check_new.cc execution test
>
Robert Dewar wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> I've asked this question twice at gcc-help, but got no response.
I didn't even get a sarcastic response! :-P
Well there is no guaranteed response, given this is a volunteer
activity. You can't complain if you don't g
The recommended way to build gcc-4.0.2 on Solaris 10 x86 is to use the
binutils assembler and the solaris linker:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#ix86-x-solaris210
This works, as long as you suppress HAVE_GAS_COMDAT_GROUP ( see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-04/msg01332.html ) but the re
Dave Korn wrote:
> Original Message
>> From: Jonathan Turkanis
>> Sent: 23 September 2005 01:43
>> If the implication is that users should grep the source code before asking
>> questions, that's not a reasonable expectation.
> It is actually the _fundamental_ principle under which
Hi Gaurav,
You could do this...
q = 4294967295U
Or you could use -std=iso9899:1999 (perhaps with -pedantic) for the compiler
to produce an error. Assuming you are using GCC 4.x.
Or if you *want* to allow that, you could do this...
-std=gnu99
I'm guessing as to which version of GCC you are usin
> I actually believe there was reason for creating the loop (ie
> redirecting the edge to anything else than the fallthru egdge
> destination) as otherwise we screwed up in
> force_nonfallthru_and_redirect and this function (called via
> force_nonfallthru) is supposed to redirect the jump back to p
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 15:50 +0200, Andreas Krebbel wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've opened a bugzilla for this: #24034
Just as an FYI, Kenny and I have replaced the global liveness analyzer
with one from df.c, and removed the need for make_accurate_live_analysis
(ie df.c now does the partial avail livene
>
> > Hi Gaurav,
> >
> >> Please confirm which of the two outputs is correct and why is there
a
> > difference in the output of two versions of compiler?
> >
> > Both outputs are "correct".
> >
>
>
> No, the standard is entirely unambiguous:
>
> --
Hello,
I've opened a bugzilla for this: #24034
Bye,
-Andreas-
> Hi Jan,
>
> I think fixup_reorder_chain contains questionable code to cope with a
> pathological case:
>
> /* The degenerated case of conditional jump jumping to the next
>instruction can happen on target having jumps with side
>effects.
>
>
Original Message
>From: Jonathan Turkanis
>Sent: 23 September 2005 01:43
> If the implication is that users should grep the source code before asking
> questions, that's not a reasonable expectation.
It is actually the _fundamental_ principle under which this particular
mailing list o
* Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050921 17:46]:
> "Gaurav Gautam, Noida" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Does -fshort-enum guides the size of enumeration type or the size of
> > enumerator constant ?
> An enumerator constant is not an object, thus it has no size of its own.
> Since the enumera
27 matches
Mail list logo
