On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of
> inline assembly then I
> have to do it twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Intel syntax.
Why? A default is merely a default. I don't really see why changing
that
Hello! I don't know all the details, and it surprises me nobody is
asking for them. Let me be the first.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 23:03, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I’m a white dude with a British accent.
> /Of course/ I have white male privilege.
So, this text makes me feel sorry for the author, but
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:50, Hi-Angel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 09:55, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/11/19 2:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > On Sep 11 2019, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was wondering what is
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 09:55, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/19 2:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Sep 11 2019, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the easiest way to allow source tree wide
> >> ctags.
> > There is make TAGS, which uses etags.
Note: over time on the
I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? I
mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
detect whether it possibly can influence application behavior, and if
not, just do the reorder.
The veto is important to C/C++ as programming languages, but not
On 13 October 2017 at 17:02, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to update the documentation of these compiler flags and have
>> some questions. The -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections documentation
>> is currently:
>
Hello,
Can I compile on Linux with gfortran code and to run it on Phi
co-processor? Or it is better to use Intel FORTRAN compiler?
Angel
Below is a sample code to test. GCC with the option allegedly says
that the line «obj = {0};» isn't initializes «mystruct::b» member to
anything, although it really is.
struct mystruct{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main(){
mystruct obj = {1,{2,3}};
printf("%i\n", obj.b[
Angel Tsankov wrote:
> Angel Tsankov wrote:
>> [..] the -I. option seems to be ignored.
>
> A further investigation reveals that GCC ignore not only "-I." but
> also "-I".
>
Still further investigation shows that versions 2.95.4, 3.0.4, and 3.1.1
take int
Angel Tsankov wrote:
> [..] the -I. option seems to be ignored.
A further investigation reveals that GCC ignore not only "-I." but also
"-I".
Angel Tsankov wrote:
> Result on my system:
> dbgcnt.o: ../dbgcnt.c ../include/config.h
>
I meant that on my system the commands produce exactly the same result,
i.e. the -I. option seems to be ignored.
-M -I../include -I. ../dbgcnt.c
gcc -M -I. -I../include ../dbgcnt.c
Result on my system:
dbgcnt.o: ../dbgcnt.c ../include/config.h
Is this the expected result or smth is wrong?
Regards,
Angel Tsankov
GE=0 to BOOT_CFLAGS;
I wonder if these steps will eventually take me to a successful build of
GCC. In case this matters, the configuration script identifies the
build, host, and target systems as powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu.
Thanks in advance,
Angel Tsankov
You remember me? I d!o Here my page: http://a-zifg.nm.ru
Hello:
We are students of computer sciences in the Santa Maria University,
Chile. We just want to know if the function "gets" it's too dangerous
for a warning. The fact is that our teacher's assistant give us a
homework, and one restriction was to use gcc to compile our code,
without warnings
Hello!
I have a VERY simple example:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
It could be reduced to:
int f1 (int i) {i = (i-7)/9+3; return i;}
int f2 (int i) {return f1 (i);}
Are there any ideas on how and where to add a target and language
independe
16 matches
Mail list logo
