Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 09:57:
[.]
Feel free to request a new option in Bugzilla to suppress the note,
that's the right place for this discussion.
Good point. I've created a ticket:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50643
Regards, Jon
Georg-Johann Lay wrote, On 01/08/11 09:40:
Jon Grant wrote:
[.]
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2011-07/msg00106.html
CCed Gerald, I think he cares for that kind of things.
If he does not answer (it's vacation time) file a PR so that it won't be
forgotten.
Johann
Thank you. I fille
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 09:53:
On 26 September 2011 09:32, Jon Grant wrote:
[.]
bool invalid = (NULL == p);
Why is that preferable?
It would be clearer IMHO what was happening.
I expect this depends on what the standard allows then.
4.12 Boolean conversions [conv.bool]
1
Hi Jonathan
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 24/09/11 15:55:
On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
about ~1 year ago.
It was there
Hello
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 26/09/11 08:10:
On 26 September 2011 05:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jon Grant writes:
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was
converted to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
At least in C++, it's not really true
Hello
I am looking for a gcc option to give a warning when parameter names
don't match between the prototype in C, and the definition. Could
someone point me to the option if there is one please.
Example provided below, where "offset" miss-spelt "offest". (I found
-Wstrict-prototypes, but t
Hello
Currently gcc, and g++ don't give a warning when a pointer was converted
to a bool, in the same way it is for other types.
Could I ask for opinion on this, and if I should create a bug ticket.
Please find below output from compilation, and attachments showing the
two tests.
gcc (Ubun
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 19/09/11 19:40:
On 19 September 2011 18:59, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
option, I see this additional output:
cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
./src/main.c: In function 'main':
./src
Hello
I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
option, I see this additional output:
cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
./src/main.c: In function 'main':
./src/main.c:41:15: error: unused variable 'hello'
Is the "cc1" line output needed? Just wondering if it co
Hello
Georg-Johann Lay wrote, On 08/07/11 19:08:
[.]
I can confirm that it's hardly readable on some systems.
I use Opera and several FF versions, some worse, some a bit less worse.
IMO it's definitely to small, I already thought about complaining, too.
Johann
Could I ask, what would be the
Hello
I have a build with a lot of structures in a big-endian style layout.
[I recognise that bit-fields are not portable due to their ordering
not being locally MSB first like the regular bit shift operation <<
is.i.e.(1<<2) == 4 ]
typedef struct reg32 {
union {
Hello
I'm using latest Firefox looking at the onlinedocs with a default
Firefox install, default font sizes, no change in zoom level.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Variable-Attributes.html
The monospace text is tiny, e.g.:
struct foo { int x[2]
__attribute__ ((aligned (8))); };
Ian Lance Taylor wrote, On 03/07/11 05:27:
Jon Grant writes:
[.]
Another reply for this old thread. I wondered, if collect2 is
possibly not needed in normal use on GNU/Linux, could GCC be
configured to call ld directly in those cases to save launching
another binary.
collect2 is needed if
On 2 February 2010 22:47, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jon writes:
>
>> Is there a way to get collect2 to save the temporary .c file it
>> generates to have a look at it? I believe it may be the __main()
>> function, with the -debug option it gives the attached
>> gplusplus_collect2_log.txt, looking
Dave Korn wrote, On 07/05/11 16:01:
On 06/05/2011 09:00, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
The difference is that with -E the -o option is passed to cc1, whereas
without it the -o option is passed to the assembler or the linker. The
GNU assembler and linker both have the usual Un
Gerald Pfeifer wrote, On 08/05/11 14:02:
On Fri, 6 May 2011, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I would propose to clarify as:
"To ensure that GCC finds the GNU assembler (or the GNU linker),"
I see no harm in that change, Gerald, what do you think?
Agreed. Things would have been different twenty years
Hello. thank you for your reply.
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 05/05/11 22:47:
On 5 May 2011 22:30, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
Just looking at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#gas
I saw this text "(the GNU loader)". Is this really an alternative name
for gas? I've not see
Hello
Is it expected that more than one -o option should be allowed by GCC
on command line? The later -o option overriding earlier. I had
expected the parameter checking to detect this duplication of options.
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
$ gcc -W -Wall -o main main.c -omup.o
$ ls
main.c m
Hello
Just looking at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/faq.html#gas
I saw this text "(the GNU loader)". Is this really an alternative name
for gas? I've not seen it called GNU loader elsewhere. I was wondering
if the text could just be removed.
Please keep my email address in any replies.
Best re
Hello Ian
Thank you for the quick reply with explanations.
2010/1/19 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Jon Grant writes:
>
>> Any easy way to evaluate and reduce command lines? Consider this:
>>
>> /usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3.3/../../../../lib/crt1.o
>>
>> Is a
2010/1/19 Jon Grant :
> I should add, I'm not on this mailing list, so please include my email
> address in any replies.
Also I notice lots of duplicate parameters:
Is this directory really needed twice?
-L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3.3 -L/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3.3
also
I should add, I'm not on this mailing list, so please include my email
address in any replies.
Cheers, Jon
Hello
gcc -o t -### test.c
Any easy way to evaluate and reduce command lines? Consider this:
/usr/lib/gcc/i486-linux-gnu/4.3.3/../../../../lib/crt1.o
Is actually the same as: /usr/lib/crt1.o -- which is much clearer!
I'm using Ubuntu 9.04.
Cheers, Jon
$ gcc -o t -### test.c
Using built-in
23 matches
Mail list logo
