I am not a GCC developer, just a regular user of C. But I have some
comments below:
On 6/9/2019 3:21 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
If I have a function returning NULL on error (including EOF).
So the program calls exit if the function doesn't return
a non-zero value (func() || exit(1)).
I have:
--/tm
On April 30, 2019 7:43:47 AM MDT, Paul Smith wrote:
>I have GCC 8.1.0 / binutils 2.30 on GNU/Linux 64bit (built locally).
>My codebase is almost all C++.
>
>I'm implementing precompiled headers and it was going well. However,
>sometimes a PCH file is generated that causes the compiler to ICE whe
On 2/27/19 6:20 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> That's actually not extreme, but pretty accepted. And yes, that has
> been litigated. And you can see that in the GPL in the definition of
> "propagate": the exclusion of executing it on a computer wouldn't be
> necessary if that weren't considered a co
On 06/06/2018 10:22 AM, Dmitry Mikushin wrote:
> The opinion you've mentioned is common in scientific community. However, in
> more detail it often surfaces that the used set of GCC compiler options
> simply does not correspond to that "fast" version of Intel. For instance,
> when you do "-O3" for
On January 4, 2018 8:10:14 PM MST, Eric Gallager wrote:
>Is there anything GCC could be doing at the compiler level to mitigate
>the recently-announced Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities? From
>reading about them, it seems like they involve speculative execution
>and indirect branch prediction,
On 10/04/2016 02:00 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> This would have been easier if C++ had allowed the same default value to
> be given in both the declaration and the definition:
>
> void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false);
>
> void foo(int x, int y, bool bar_p = false)
> {
> }
There is really no
This is kind of stream-of-conciousness but I swear there's an
interesting new bit about 8 paragraphs down. :)
On 04/20/2016 07:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
>> > I would like someone to look at this and tell me this is an alrea
On 4/20/2016 7:18 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 9:11 AM, Zan Lynx wrote:
I would like someone to look at this and tell me this is an already
fixed bug. Or that recent GCC patches may have fixed it. :-)
Or it would also be great to get some advice on building a reproducer
I would like someone to look at this and tell me this is an already
fixed bug. Or that recent GCC patches may have fixed it. :-)
Or it would also be great to get some advice on building a reproducer
without needing to include many megabytes of proprietary code plus Boost.
I've been using Fedora 2
On 04/07/2015 09:00 AM, Stefan Ehrlich wrote:
> compiler and linker options are:
> avr-g++.exe -c -Os -Wall -fdata-sections -ffunction-sections
> -fvisibility=hidden -fvisibility-inlines-hidden -fno-rtti -flto
> -fuse-linker-plugin -mmcu=atmega8 ...
> avr-gcc.exe -Wall -Os -Wl,-static -Wl,-flto
I am trying to track down a bug that I only see on Fedora 21 with the
GCC 4.9.2 compiler building x86_64 code. It might have started happening
earlier. GCC 4.8 built without this problem.
I am building the c-ares library as part of a larger project and getting
malloc failures. Valgrind claims tha
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 12:30 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0600, Zan Lynx wrote:
> > I'm not subscribed to the list (please CC replies to me) and this isn't
> > a real bug report, just a sort of quick check to see if its a known
> > pr
n bug, please let me know, thanks. :-)
--
Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
13 matches
Mail list logo
