2010/7/14 Basile Starynkevitch :
> I am quite sure that at some point in the past, the mark_hook did work.
>
> But I have the impression that with the current gengtype, they don't.
[...]
> Does any one have a working example of mark_hook GTY?
Have you ruled out user errors here? Are there any mark
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 16/07/2010 01:31, J Decker wrote:
>> Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning...
>>
>> typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition;
>>
>> and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how?
>
> No, that would be bad coding. Just forwar
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM, J Decker wrote:
> Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning...
>
> typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition;
>
> and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how? If I never
> actually use 'NeverUsedDefinition'? Actually this 'feature' now
> causes usele
On 16/07/2010 01:31, J Decker wrote:
> Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning...
>
> typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition;
>
> and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how?
No, that would be bad coding. Just forward-declare the tag:
struct a;
before you try and use it
On Fri, 2010-07-16 at 02:06 +0200, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> Testing the mingw64-i686* packages found at
> ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/temp/MinGW (Cygwin cross
> compiler, see[*]), I have obtained an ICE:
>
> $ cat ICE_test.cpp
> void foo(char const* upattern, int color)
> {
>st
Oh not so bad then, I can just add at the beginning...
typedef struct a *NeverUsedDefinition;
and now it's happy? And that makes good coding how? If I never
actually use 'NeverUsedDefinition'? Actually this 'feature' now
causes useless and unused declartions to be created.
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010
On 16/07/2010 01:21, J Decker wrote:
> Now it's happy, why can't it just define 'struct a' as an appropriate
> name as it used to, the strucutre still isn't defined.
That's just the way that C works, I'm afraid.
> (okay every other compiler I mention is MSVC, OpenWatcom, lcc, and gcc
> before
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote:
>
>> --
>>
>> #define PointerA struct a *
>>
>> void f( PointerA );
>>
>> typedef struct a * PA;
>> struct a { int x; };
>>
>> void f( PA a )
>> {
>> }
>>
>> ---
On 16/07/2010 00:59, J Decker wrote:
> --
>
> #define PointerA struct a *
>
> void f( PointerA );
>
> typedef struct a * PA;
> struct a { int x; };
>
> void f( PA a )
> {
> }
>
> -
>
> This is the output
>
> warning: 'struct a' de
Testing the mingw64-i686* packages found at
ftp://ftp.cygwinports.org/pub/cygwinports/temp/MinGW (Cygwin cross
compiler, see[*]), I have obtained an ICE:
$ cat ICE_test.cpp
void foo(char const* upattern, int color)
{
static short bitmap_data[8];
for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++)
{
bitmap_da
This is the code.
--
#define PointerA struct a *
void f( PointerA );
typedef struct a * PA;
struct a { int x; };
void f( PA a )
{
}
-
This is the output
warning: 'struct a' declared inside parameter list
warning: its scope is onl
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100715 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100715/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hello,
I started to look at VTA recently and check whether our port passes
the -fcompare-debug test. Our port contains some extra passes for
our VLIW target.
What I have trouble is with our modulo scheduling pass (based on
IMS algorithm). I noticed that debug_insns are built into DDG,
and has
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
>> hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
>>
>> int test (int a, int c)
>> {
>> return a<
On 07/15/2010 09:57 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
int test (int a, int c)
{
return a<< (c& 0x1f);
}
The macro was defined as:
+/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCAT
On 15 July 2010 10:54, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> How shall we address this for real? Is it really worthwhile to manually
> generate those .html.gz files for onlinedocs/libstdc++ or could we simply
> omit that step? Not sure it's really worth the hassles?
I have no idea why we gzip them, it certa
On 12/07/10 14:25, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
This means that we need to choose a name for it. Obviously, it's better
if it's an "official" name, so I want to discuss it here. I'm aware that
there is some bikeshedding to do here, but it's better it gets done
before anybody gets stuck with something els
Hello!
I was playing a bit with TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK on x86 in the
hope that redundant masking would get eliminated from:
int test (int a, int c)
{
return a << (c & 0x1f);
}
The macro was defined as:
+/* Implement TARGET_SHIFT_TRUNCATION_MASK. */
+static unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT
18 matches
Mail list logo
