On Tue, 13 Dec 2022, 19:23 Paul Koning via Gcc, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > For the following program:
> >
> >
> >$ cat buf.c
> >#include
> >
> >int main(void)
> >{
> >char *p, buf[5];
> >
> >
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022, 19:28 Dave Blanchard, wrote:
>
>
> Hell, I haven't even got started complaining about anything. Should we get
> into The Entire Linux Ecosystem, Led By GNU's recent bizarre decision to
> start incrementing major version numbers seemingly every 3 months? It's
> almost like you
On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 14:20:39 -0500
Paul Koning wrote:
> I'm puzzled. What is your purpose? What result do you expect from your
> messages? What action would you like to see?
GCC is a "mailing list." This is a recent innovation in which people post
comments about subjects they are interested
Hi Paul,
On 12/13/22 20:22, Paul Koning wrote:
On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
Hi!
For the following program:
$ cat buf.c
#include
int main(void)
{
char *p, buf[5];
p = buf + 6;
printf("%p\n", p);
}
There are
> On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
> wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> For the following program:
>
>
>$ cat buf.c
>#include
>
>int main(void)
>{
>char *p, buf[5];
>
>p = buf + 6;
>printf("%p\n", p);
>}
>
>
> There are no warnings in
On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 20:15 +0100, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
>
> On 12/13/22 20:08, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > For the following program:
> >
> >
> > $ cat buf.c
> > #include
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > char *p, buf[5];
> >
> >
> On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:09 PM, Dave Blanchard wrote:
>
> Since my response did not get posted (maybe one of the words wasn't allowed?
> or because I attached binaries?) here it is again:
> ...
I'm puzzled. What is your purpose? What result do you expect from your
messages? What action wo
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:16 AM Alejandro Colomar via Gcc
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/13/22 20:08, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > For the following program:
> >
> >
> > $ cat buf.c
> > #include
> >
> > int main(void)
> > {
> > char *p, buf[5];
> >
> > p =
On 12/13/22 20:08, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi!
For the following program:
$ cat buf.c
#include
int main(void)
{
char *p, buf[5];
p = buf + 6;
printf("%p\n", p);
}
There are no warnings in gcc, as I would expect:
I just re-read my te
Since my response did not get posted (maybe one of the words wasn't allowed? or
because I attached binaries?) here it is again:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 11:35:39 -0600
From: Dave Blanchard
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: p...@mad-scientist.net
Subject: Re: Good grief Charlie Bro
Hi!
For the following program:
$ cat buf.c
#include
int main(void)
{
char *p, buf[5];
p = buf + 6;
printf("%p\n", p);
}
There are no warnings in gcc, as I would expect:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra buf.c -O0
Clang does warn, however:
$ clang -W
On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 11:35 -0600, Dave Blanchard wrote:
> *angry, grumpy, pissed off, GNU-hating distro maintainer enters the
> chat*
> nobody on the mailing list has any idea what it could possibly be I
> guess, since nobody responded to my email.
Yes, I can't imagine any other reason no one has
>
> Maybe you want to iterate over the loops exit edges and include their
> destination block instead?
>
This is better approach, let me try it and I will be back to you.
Thanks,
Claudiu
> Am 13.12.2022 um 17:54 schrieb Claudiu Zissulescu Ianculescu via Gcc
> :
>
> UPDATE:
> The df_analyze_loop is calling the df_set_blocks. Thus, the analysis
> behaves as if the function only contains those blocks and any edges
> that occur directly between the blocks in the set (see df-core.
UPDATE:
The df_analyze_loop is calling the df_set_blocks. Thus, the analysis
behaves as if the function only contains those blocks and any edges
that occur directly between the blocks in the set (see df-core.cc).
This said, the loop-doloop behaves faulty at loop-doloop.cc:772 as the
df_get_lives_ou
On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 11:28 -0500, Jim Anderson via Gcc wrote:
> 1) I could not find any place to download the man page. I lost my
> internet connect and I have not man page :(
You didn't say what platform you're working on, nor how you obtained
the GCC that you are using, but recall that the GCC
I'm updating an old C language program and looked to download the man
page for gcc. I was astonished by:
1) I could not find any place to download the man page. I lost my
internet connect and I have not man page :(
2) How over pervasive gcc has become. It appears to be everything for
ever
I think Nathan might've been asking not only about what currently
happens, but what we think should happen?
On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 7:11 PM chuanqi.xcq wrote:
>
> Hi Nathan,
>
> > 1) Are these flags silently ignored, if no module output is to be
> > generated? Or is some kind of diagnostic gene
The release of GNU MPFR 4.2.0 ("fondue savoyarde") is imminent.
Please help to make this release as good as possible by downloading
and testing this release candidate:
https://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-4.2.0/mpfr-4.2.0-rc1.tar.xz
https://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-4.2.0/mpfr-4.2.0-rc1.tar.bz2
https://www.mpfr.org/
It looks like that. The df_analyze_loop is only looking at the loop
BBs, and it is not clear for me if df_analyze_loop is required to have
all the df_live_outs correctly computed or not. Do you know if it is
true?
If the df_analyze_loop is not supposed to compute all the df_live_outs
correctly, th
Solaris 11.3 has reached the end of its support live, as can be seen in
the following overview based on
https://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-hardware-301321.pdf,
p.40:
Release GA Date Last Premier Extended GCC
Update Support Support Obso
> The problem shows in loop-doloop.c when I introduce a loop end pattern
> that replaces the first jump instruction (JUMP_INSN 15) with a pattern
> that clobbers CC reg. However, the DF doesn't look like it works as
> the doloop step cannot find the CC reg alive. Please see
> loop-doloop.c:766. Hen
22 matches
Mail list logo
