Patrick Moran writes:
> We are two students in a Compiler Design course who have been
> assigned to work on a gcc beginners project. We have chosen the
> project on making pseudo-templated containers, and we had some
> questions about the semantics you want from them. The gcc page
> specific
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Joel Sherrill
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I made a stupid typo and accidentally included
> an unprotected file from itself. The error
> message generated by gcc surprised me and I
> wondered if there was a better alternative.
>
> $ cat recursive_include.c
> #include "recursi
After a buffer overflow has been found (and fixed) in the
mpfr_snprintf and mpfr_vsnprintf functions of MPFR 2.4.0,
it has been decided to release MPFR 2.4.1 immediately.
It is available for download from the MPFR web site:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-2.4.1/
The MD5's:
22402995cf2496d8faea42c8da02
Dear all,
We are two students in a Compiler Design course who have been
assigned to work on a gcc beginners project. We have chosen the
project on making pseudo-templated containers, and we had some
questions about the semantics you want from them. The gcc page
specifically mentioned splay tr
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20090225 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20090225/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Dear all,
I was working on the machine description so I was postponing a bit
this problem but now I have a bit more time on my hands to handle it.
I'm starting to look at the various links and code you've provided me
and will keep you posted if I make any headway or not ;-).
> For the GCC port I
Hi,
I made a stupid typo and accidentally included
an unprotected file from itself. The error
message generated by gcc surprised me and I
wondered if there was a better alternative.
$ cat recursive_include.c
#include "recursive_include.c"
$ gcc -c recursive_include.c
Paul Brook wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> In general it's impossible to make __builtin_return_address(N) to work for
> N>0.
>> In userland ARM EABI doesn't have a frame pointer chain, so what you
>> suggest isn't possible. However, we do need to unwind the stack
On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 10:23 +0100, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 08:56 +0100, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
> > > > OK for stage 1 (GCC 4.5), currently pretty much everything is frozen on
> > > > mainline, except regressions (I hope stage 1 will open soon, since we
> > > > have
> > > > mon
Hello,
Some time ago I asked a question regarding the possibility to schedule an
operation on alternative functional units (FUs) AND depending on the chosen FUs
to generate a dedicated assembly mnemonic.
To give a simple example suppose I have a move operation that can be issued on
one of the
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Florent DEFAY
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know more about REAL_MODE_FORMAT and real_format_for_mode.
>
> I'm sorry because I already posted this email in gcc-help mailing-list
> but there was no answer and maybe its right place is here ?
>
> I am working on a
Hi,
I would like to know more about REAL_MODE_FORMAT and real_format_for_mode.
I'm sorry because I already posted this email in gcc-help mailing-list
but there was no answer and maybe its right place is here ?
I am working on a port of GCC. The new xgcc generated crashes this way :
Program rece
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 12:27 +, Paul Brook wrote:
> In general it's impossible to make __builtin_return_address(N) to work for
> N>0.
In any situation where you need to look beyond the current frame needs
agreement as to how the data required can be found. That's going to
have an impact someh
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Can someone *please* ban this nutcase from the wiki?
> There is almost weekly spam added to the wiki from this account.
> Thanks,
Let me forward this to the overseers team...
Gerald
On Wednesday 25 February 2009, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > currently[1] __builtin_return_address for ARM only works with level == 0.
> >
> > For ftrace in the linux kernel it would be great to implement that for
> > level > 0 (provided that framepointers or unwind information
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> currently[1] __builtin_return_address for ARM only works with level == 0.
>
> For ftrace in the linux kernel it would be great to implement that for
> level > 0 (provided that framepointers or unwind information are
> available of course). On the linux-arm-kernel ML Mik
Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> currently[1] __builtin_return_address for ARM only works with level == 0.
>
> For ftrace in the linux kernel it would be great to implement that for
> level > 0 (provided that framepointers or unwind information are
> available of course). On the linux-arm-ke
Hello,
currently[1] __builtin_return_address for ARM only works with level == 0.
For ftrace in the linux kernel it would be great to implement that for
level > 0 (provided that framepointers or unwind information are
available of course). On the linux-arm-kernel ML Mikael Pettersson[2]
said that
18 matches
Mail list logo
