Am Tue, 5 May 2015 21:37:10 -0700
Andrew Pinski :
> On Tue, May 5, 2015@9:00 PM, Aditya K wrote:
> >>>
> >>> gcc/rtlanal.c:5573:23: warning: array index 1 is past the end of the
> >>> array (which contains 1 element) [-Warray-bounds]
> >>> ../../gcc/rtlanal.c:5573:23: warning: array index 1 is p
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Aditya K wrote:
>
>
>
>> CC: jwakely@gmail.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> From: pins...@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
>&g
> CC: jwakely@gmail.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: pins...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 20:19:04 -0700
> To: hiradi...@msn.com
>
>
>
&
cc/gcov-tool.c:493:7: warning: variable 'ret' is used uninitialized
> whenever 'if' condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
> if (argc - optind == 2)
> ^~
> ../../gcc/gcov-tool.c:498:10: note: uninitialized use occurs here
> retu
~
../../gcc/gcov-tool.c:462:10: note: initialize the variable 'ret' to silence
this warning
int ret;
^
= 0
I think I can fix few of these if we want them to be fixed.
For some e.g. ( gcc/gcov-tool.c:225:7: warning: array index 1 is past the end
of the
On 5 May 2015 at 12:39, Aditya K wrote:
> There are however, other differences between class and struct
> (http://stackoverflow.com/a/999810/811335) i.e.,
>
> 1. In absence of an access-specifier for a base class, public is assumed when
> the derived class is declared struct and private is assume
On 05/05/2015 12:42 AM, Aditya K wrote:
I was able to successfully bootstrap gcc by using clang as the stage 1
compiler. I configured gcc using the following arguments.
../configure --disable-multilib --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
CC=/work/llvm/install-release/bin/clang
CXX=/wor
> CC: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: pins...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 01:11:38 -0700
> To: renato.go...@linaro.org
>
>
>
>
>
>> On M
On 5 May 2015 at 11:23, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> Saying forward declaration should be done with class is a value choice
> you've made.
Yes.
> Given forward declarations with struct and class are
> interchangable it seems like a perfectly valid choice to me to decide
> you don't care to bother
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:00:59AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
> > is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
>
> Apart from the fact that classes are private by d
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:42:02AM +, Aditya K wrote:
> I was able to successfully bootstrap gcc by using clang as the stage 1
> compiler. I configured gcc using the following arguments.
>
> ../configure --disable-multilib --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
> CC=/work/llvm/install-r
> On May 5, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
>> is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
>
> Apart from the fact that classes are private by defaul
On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
> is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
Apart from the fact that classes are private by default and structs
are not. They may be similar for layout purposes, and
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Aditya K wrote:
> I was able to successfully bootstrap gcc by using clang as the stage 1
> compiler. I configured gcc using the following arguments.
>
> ../configure --disable-multilib --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
> CC=/work/llvm/install-release/bin
14 matches
Mail list logo
