Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-14 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> The attached patch makes it clearer to me, does anyone agree? Please check this in. Thanks Jonathan! -benjamin

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
"If the old GNU extern inline behavior is desired, one can use extern inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)). The use of this attribute can be guarded by #ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ which is a macro which is defined when inline has the ISO C99 behavior, or compiled with -fgnu89-inline option." I t

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-11 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> I would start with Dave's fix, and then see if we can improve it > somehow. Presumably this is talking about Manuel's work, at least > in part? In part. Actually, the new warnings are all over the place. I've attached a summary from: http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz/rawhide20071220-gcc43/Werror/

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-10 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:10:02PM -, Dave Korn wrote: > On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> > >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastruct

RE: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-10 Thread Dave Korn
On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several >>> existing warning flags new ability to spot pro

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-10 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several > > existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code. > > > > Is this sentence okay?

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-10 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several > existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code. > > Is this sentence okay? I'm not a native speaker, so I might miss a > nuance here. No, it's

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-10 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > As such, I'd like to get a general indication from the greater GCC> community > as to this plan. Does this document seem like a good idea? > (Previously, we've left this kind of document to the user community. > Often the passage of time has not been pa

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-09 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As such, I'd like to get a general indication from the greater GCC > community as to this plan. Does this document seem like a good idea? > (Previously, we've left this kind of document to the user community. > Often the passage of time has not been pa

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-09 Thread Andrew Haley
Benjamin Kosnik writes: > > > Attached is a rough cut of a detailed portability document > > I also put this up here temporarily: > > http://people.redhat.com/~bkoz/porting_to_gcc43.html The "Java issues" part isn't quite right. It turns out that the java 1.2 problem with the new gcj is

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-08 Thread Joe Buck
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 06:41:37PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik proposes: > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html > > would be joined by > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/porting_to.html > > This would imply that the porting document would be checked in to > wwwdocs and available to all the usual GCC c

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

2008-01-08 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> Attached is a rough cut of a detailed portability document I also put this up here temporarily: http://people.redhat.com/~bkoz/porting_to_gcc43.html -benjamin