On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:16 PM Warren D Smith wrote:
>
> x = x^x;
>
> The purpose of the above is to load "x" with zero.
Don't waste your time. Intel was offering that advice to writers of assembly
language and compilers. Gcc already does the right thing.
Try the following on an Intel/AMD
You can already do this today. Run the output of the compiler through 'tac'.
No need for a new feature.
https://linux.die.net/man/1/tac
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of nicolas
bouillot
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:09 PM
(delurking)
Ian Grant writes:
> In case it isn't obvious, what I am interested in is how easily we can know
> the problem of infeasibly large binaries isn't an instance of this one:
>
> http://livelogic.blogspot.com/2014/08/beware-insiduous-penetrator-my-son.html
Ah, this is commonly calle
Some background on the below: Google has recently changed its algorithms, and
the presence of obvious spam mails pointing to a site now *lower* that site's
Google rank. So the same "search engine optimization" people who created the
spams for pay in the first place are now frantically trying to
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:23:51AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 8/9/2013 11:05 AM, Deng Hengyi wrote:
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > I have done a test, it seems that '-march=i386' does not provide
> > "__atomic_compare_exchange_n" libs. And '-march=i486' or '-march=pentium'
> > can find the '__atomic_
Richard Henderson writes:
> On
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html
> we have a stale link to
> http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html
>What's the new canonical location for this document?
Looks like CodeSourcery is being assimilated into Mentor. The parent di
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Perhaps I'm missing something. While memcpy is not permitted to assume
> > alignment of its arguments, copy is. Otherwise, if I wrote
> >
> > void copy(struct foo* f0, struct foo* f1)
> > {
> > *f
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee wrote:
> > On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
> > gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
> > TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
> > SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to 1.
> >
>
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:39:16PM -0700, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> I've thought more about the syntax, and I see this making more sense:
> bool isSystemOpen[!isSystemClosed];
You've just declared an array of bool, whose size is the expression
!isSystemClosed.
As developers have already showed you ho
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:13:47PM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
[ problem with visibility for bar::~bar for testcase ]
> $ cat test.h
> struct foo {
> virtual ~foo();
> };
> struct bar : public foo {
> virtual void zed();
> };
> $ cat def.cpp
> #include "test.h"
> void bar::zed() {
> }
> $ ca
It only saves one character in any case: your "self" is just "*this".
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] on behalf of Ian Lance
Taylor [i...@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Rick C. Hodgin
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do
> this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question
> is whether this is something that GCC wants to have.
>
> If the answer is NO, that
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:33:54PM -0800, Aayush Upadhyay wrote:
> I'm a sophomore in college, and I'm a solid C programmer. I'd like to
work on an open source project, and the gcc compiler seems like a great
one. However, I'm not sure if work is still done on the compiler itself,
or just po
On 10/10/2011 08:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> PODness has changed from C++98.
Jason Merrill wrote:
> Class layout in the ABI still uses the C++98 definition of POD.
But does this actually matter? If I understand correctly, more classes are POD
under the C++11
rules than the C++98 rules, bu
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:04:34PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
> > Adding this to GCC seems like a total waste of time, write a dwarf
> > processor that dumps the info you want.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> I suspect there is a misunders
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:35:17PM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> C++11 is essentially binary incompatible with C++98.
Only partially. The layout for user-defined classes is the same, and
code sequences for calls that don't include new features like rvalue
references is the same. Some very imp
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
> unless there are no objects compiled with c++98 linked into the same
> executable.
Gabriel
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
> >> "experimental" about it any more.
> >
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:01PM -0700, Xiangfu Liu wrote:
> Hi
>
> I got the pdf file. and I also sent out the papers by postal mail.
> where is the pdf file I should send to?
>
> I have tried:
>copyright-cl...@fsf.org ass...@gnu.org
>
> and I don't know Donald R. Robertson's email addres
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:20:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Hmmm, you're right, -Wmissing-declarations seems to be equivalent to
> -Wmissing-prototypes when using C++. Sorry I missed that.
Then it would seem that HJ's issue could be fixed by treating
-Wmissing-prototypes as a synonym for
I'm confused. Since C++ treats the lack of a prototype as a hard error, what
does it mean to make -Wmissing-prototypes useless?
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of H.J. Lu
[hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> -ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Gaby writes:
> Yes!
Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
subtraction, and then convert the result to signed? This would then guarantee
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
> pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
> of the array. According to this 0x8000 - 0x7FFF should be a valid
>
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:30:16AM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Diogo Sousa wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I checked the "library functions in " item in c99status
> > (marked as "Library Issue") [http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html], and it
> > seems that glibc implements everythi
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> It sounds to me like the question "are you allowed to translate this" remains
> valid and open, even if this particular translator is not real.
Yes, the SC's discussing it with RMS now and I'm hopeful that there will
be some positive
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:07:58AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
> * Speedup_areas wiki page is very interesting, but lacks measurements to
> help me assess the weight of each area mentioned. Any comments on those?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> General comment: w
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:38:02PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Our releases are normally built with GNU tar, which seems to default to
> --format=tar. I wonder if we should switch to --format=pax. The pax
> format was defined by POSIX.1 10 years ago, and should be widely
> supported at this
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:52:56AM -0700, FX wrote:
> > this is a known issue and strictly cygwin related. Please update your
> > cygwin environment to newest version, or disable decimal-floating
> > point by option.
>
> Well, maybe this is known, but it is not noted on the GCC 4.6.0 release
> no
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
>
> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressio
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:33:58AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
> >
> >> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to
> >> see
> >> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
> >
> >
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:56:47AM -0800, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
> Hello Folks
> You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
> http://www.aspectc.org/
> Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
> Would be cool to define aspect because it would make you
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB
> but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
>
> This seems like a microscopically small market segment. I can't see any
> s
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:08:39AM -0800, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to ask the opinion of C/C++ maintainers about the extension
> that the Intel compiler proposes for array notations:
> http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en-us/2011/compiler_c/i
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:26:58PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Chris Lattner:
> >>
> >> > On overflow it just forces the size pa
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:26:58PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Chris Lattner:
>
> > On overflow it just forces the size passed in to operator new to
> > -1ULL, which throws bad_alloc.
>
> This is also what my patch tries to implement.
Yes, but Chris's code just checks the overflow of the mu
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:49:23PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The existing GCC behaviour is a bit more perverse than the
> C malloc() case as in
>
>new T[n]
>
> there is no multiplication that could be credited to careless programmer.
> The multiplication is introduced by GCC.
...
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:08:44AM -0800, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:36:08AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > The D specific part of gdc is already GPL, it's just copyrighted by
> > > Digital Mars. I understand the copyright must be reassigned to the FSF.
> > > Is it possible
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:47:34PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > It is not so unlikely that multiple instances of cc1, cc1plus, and f951
> > are running simultaneously. Granted, I haven't done any measurements.
>
> Most projects are written in only one language. Sure, there may be
> cases w
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Sebastian wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote:
> > gcc can not dump a callgraph. Both GNU ld and gold can dump a
> > cross-reference table, which is not a call graph but could perhaps be
> > used to produce a call graph. See the --cref option.
> -
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:49:58AM -0700, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Something tells me that GCC 4.4.5 and 4.5.2 should have been
> released a long time ago, but I don't even see regular GCC
> status updates. Are all release managers on leave?
Who or what is this "something" that tell
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
> > currently is
> > charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
>
> Apple does not have an i
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL->GFDL I
> cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
> same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because there is explicit language in the Affero
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:34:51AM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
>no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
>
> When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn but
> rightly so.
>
> I don't see what th
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:21:05AM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
> > containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
> > generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
> > part would
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:51:13PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> gcc and gccint docs are actually pretty reasonable. (Certainly gccint is
> vastly better than some of its siblings, like gdbint.) But very little of it
> is generated and very little of what comes to mind as possible subject matter
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 01:20:45PM -0700, Brian Makin wrote:
> Or to move to a better foundation? It seems to me that gcc has had various
> issues for various reasons for quite a while now. RMS is all for tightly
> controller yet freely distributable software.
> Maybe it's time to throw more ef
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53:48AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL, which
> would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass muster with
> RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits relicensing GPL'd
> content unde
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:36:46PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> >> 2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
> >> manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
> >>
> >> This got complicated; see previous postin
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:10:56AM -0700, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> When you compile with -Os, the inlining happens only when code size reduces.
> Thus we pretty much care about the code size metrics only. I suspect the
> problem here might be that normal C++ code needs some inlining to make
> abstract
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:39:44AM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> ... I was told that
> generating a *texi file from (GPLv3+ licensed, FSF copyrighted) source
> code could be incompatible with the GFDL license of gccint.texi.
The SC is trying to work something out with RMS on this (more gene
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:57:31AM -0700, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 05/17/2010 08:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> >PR42904 is a bug where, when compiling a windows DLL using
> > -fwhole-program,
> > the compiler optimises away the entire library body, because there's no
> > depende
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 01:12:45PM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Not sure where to send this, who is responsible for the mail server
> for gcc.gnu.org?
The admins can be reached at overse...@gcc.gnu.org .
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 08:29:19AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:30:33AM -0700, Mark Mielke wrote:
> >> Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
> >>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:30:33AM -0700, Mark Mielke wrote:
> Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
> specification and by the Linux glibc manpage:
>
> DESCRIPTION
> The memcpy() function copies n bytes from memory area src to
> memory
> ar
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:34:43AM -0700, Toon Moene wrote:
> On 04/28/2010 01:44 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > This year GCC received 10 slots for Google Summer of Code.
>
> [ This is probably documented on the Google site somewhere,
>but I couldn't find it. ]
>
> How is this division in "
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >>> The disclaimers are legally necessary t
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> The real issue is not the copyright disclaimer, it is the legal terms
> inside. Maybe U.Illinois don't use words like "unlumited liaibility".
Where are you getting this term "unlimited liability" from?
I think that your legal
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >
> > The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
> > trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
> > copyright over a change.
>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:22:32AM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
> problem, as always, is who will do this job. But I don't think nobody
> will be against if you create a GCC blog/tweeter/youtube channel and
> start writing n
> >> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html
> >
> > ...As it happens, some C++ diagnostics are better than the
> > same diagnostic for C and viceversa.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:45:11AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I think all the C examples are also valid C++
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I wrote a little blog post that shows off some of the things that Clang can
> do. It would be great to improve some of GCC/G++'s diagnostics in a similar
> way:
>
> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recover
> From: Ian Bolton [mailto:bol...@icerasemi.com]
> > Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
> > in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
> > turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:21:05PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> Does -Os mean "optimize even if it ma
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:40:44PM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I tried to do
> > >
> &
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I tried to do
>
> for (;; ({ break; }))
> printf("Hello\n");
>
> and got an error message:
>
> error: break statement not within loop or switch
But it only got through the parser, so that this error message
co
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:45:49AM -0800, Martin Guy wrote:
> > You want to cater for a minority with old hardware. I
> > actually expect you'll find that those users are less naive than the
> > average gcc user.
> I want to cater for everyone, especially youngsters, learners and the
> poor strug
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:00:07PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 4:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > But maybe I didn't ask the right question: can any x86 experts comment on
> > recently made x86 CPUs that would not function correctly with code
> > produced
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:37PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> >> --with-arch on i686-p
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
> would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can
> we reconsider
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:23:45PM -0800, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> > Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
> > standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
> > is an *highly* non-tr
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:00:44AM -0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed
> > with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open
> > source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the
> > two are
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0800, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources.
> The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital
> Mars DMD front end.
>
> The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright i
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> > to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, yo
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:17:18AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It shouldn't as *(int *)0 = 0; might trap. But if you want to be sure
> > use
> >__builtin_trap ();
> > instead for the whole sequence (the unreachable is implied then).
> > GCC choses a size-optimal trap representat
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:53:30PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
> > Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me very nervous.
> > If uninitialized memory reads are transformed into don't-cares, then
> > checking tools like valgrind will no longer see the UMR (assuming that
> > the lack of i
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:36:00PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
> My opinion is that code containing undefined behaviors is definitely
> interesting, but probably it is interesting in a different way than
> functions that are more meaningful.
Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me v
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:07:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
> >> case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
> >> one field, and that fie
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:26:36AM -0800, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> My feeling is that Google's Go (quite a nice language from the slides I just
> have read) is almost "canonically" the case
> for a front-end plugin.
I have some major concerns about this suggestion. Isn't this a recipe for
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> >
> > The wish for more granular and thus smaller debug information (things like
> > -gfunction-arguments which would properly show parameter values
> > for backtraces) was brought up. We agree that this shou
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Paul Smedley wrote:
> I'm wanting to update the GNU ADA compiler for OS/2... I'm currently
> building GCC 4.3.x and 4.4.x on OS/2 (C/C++/fortran) but for ADA
> configure complains about not finding gnat. The problem is that the
> only gnat compiled for OS/
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
> > say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
> > that is t
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:42:51AM -0700, Ross Smith wrote:
>
> On 2009-08-05, at 04:03, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > Another alternative would be an extra flag that would turn on
> > conformance
> > to the spec.
>
> Traditionally spelled -posixly-corre
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Erwin" == Unruh, Erwin writes:
>
> Erwin> In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
> Erwin> Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
> Erwin> should not matter for the c89 command
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:34:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> > Robert Dewar writes:
>
> >> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
> >> this mailing list.
>
> > Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quit
> * Joe Buck:
>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> >> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> >> compiled with GCC 4.4. The
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
> later, which is incompat
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:35:13PM -0700, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
> Re: -print-* command-line switches misbehave or are misdocumented
>
> Why not just fix it, if not document the way it works, cutsie, "its a
> developer feature" fools no one and just hands ammunition to the
> anti Linux and GNU cam
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:38:31AM -0700, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> 1. Add bool field `modified_p' in bitmap structure.
> 2. Make iterator setup functions (e.g. bmp_iter_set_init) reset it to
> false.
> 3. Make functions that modify the bitmap set it to true.
> 4. Make iterator increment function
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:59:32AM -0700, Bryce wrote:
> Many IDEs other than the ones that you list on your page of
> front-ends to GCC compiler exist. One such IDE is XCode 3.1.3, which
> is developed by Apple, Inc.
That's not an oversight. The intention is to only include free software,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > * Test starting the bootstrap with earlier versions of the compiler to
> > see which C++ compiler version is required, and document that.
>
> I think the right approach is not d
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > But if the initialization is skipped and the variable is then used,
> > won't we get an uninitialized-variable warning?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:32:51AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Did we get any in the cases Ian
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modra wrote:
> > ..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
> > or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
> > unless you care about C++ style.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:35:48AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:51:17PM -0700, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I also agree with Robert's comments that all warnings are about valid C,
> with -Wall we diagnose what we subjectively feel is dubious coding
> practice. Not everyone will agree with what -Wall contains, that's not a
> reason to fre
Richard Guenther wrote:
> > It is known (but maybe not appropriately documented) that deleting
> > bits in the bitmap you iterate over is not safe. If it would be me I would
> > see if I could make it safe though.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:06:38AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's not a huge deal -
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:54:06AM -0700, Adam Nemet wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
> > We need something more like "I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc well enough
> > to approve patches to reload" or "I am Fred Bloggs and I know gcc well
> > enough to approve patches to reload."
>
> And whom should su
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:03:53PM -0700, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2009, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > - Performance differences over SPEC2006 and the other benchmarks
> > we keep track of.
>
> This one is trivial: none whatsoever. The generated code is the same,
> and it *must* be th
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Nisbet wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the
> >> interfaces in GCC ICI.
On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > GCC != LLVM. And this is a GCC list. Can LLVM topics please be
> > discussed
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Shobaki, Ghassan wrote:
> In some optimization passes it may be useful to know the programming
> language that we are compiling. Is there a way to get that information
> in the middle end and back end?
Is that really a good idea? If a particular optimizat
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Robert Dewar writes:
>
> > Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:12, Robert Dewar wrote:
> What would we have to do to make PPL and CLooG required to build GCC?
> >>> Why would that be desirable? Seems to me the cu
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Denis Onischenko
> wrote:
> > The minimal code example is following:
> >
> >
> > extern unsigned int __invalid_size_argument;
> > #define TYPECHECK(t)( sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) ? sizeof(t) :
> > __invalid_size_argument )
> >
> > static int arr[] = {
> >
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 01:34:15PM -0700, Kirill Kononenko wrote:
> So how did it happen that the only project which was a candidate for
> libJIT Summer of Code in GNU, with the same title got selected in
> LLVM?
You can ask the Google folks that question, but it's off-topic for the GCC
list.
1 - 100 of 980 matches
Mail list logo
