On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Eus
wrote:
> Hi Ho!
>
> Sorry, if I sort of hijack this thread.
>
> On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>
>> > > "int i;" is not the same as "extern int i;".
>> >
>> > Sorry for my ignorance but I have been reading and searching for the
>> > a
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>>> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
>>> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>>> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
>>> >
>>> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
>>> > defining something, only on a
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>>>
>>> BTW, why is this warned about?
>>
>> I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
>> defining something, only on a declaration that is not a definition.
>
> But may it lead to some confusion or subtle error?
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
>>> * In C a const variable which is neither "extern" nor "static" is
>>> visible outside of the current translation unit. In C++ it is not,
>>> without an explicit "extern" declaration. I'm not sure how best to
>>> handle this w
Hi Ho!
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 12:40 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> [I imagine Ian is aware of this anywyay, but to try to clarify...]
>
> At file scope, "int i;" with no initializer is a "tentative
> definition" in C, see 6.9.2/2; a tentative definition is an odd beast
> that works in some ways ra
Hi Ho!
On Thu, 2009-04-30 at 11:57 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> What you are describing is a common and traditional implementation of C,
> but it is not strictly standard conformant. The ISO C standard says
> that "int i;" is always a definition, and "extern int i;" is always a
> declaration
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Eus writes:
>
>> I think the difference between "int i;" and "extern int i;" at
>> file-scope in C is that "int i;" will only be treated as a definition if
>> it is not defined in another place in the same file/TU. IOW, its linkage
>> is
Eus writes:
> I think the difference between "int i;" and "extern int i;" at
> file-scope in C is that "int i;" will only be treated as a definition if
> it is not defined in another place in the same file/TU. IOW, its linkage
> is internal within the TU itself. But, "extern int i" is definitely
Hi Ho!
Sorry, if I sort of hijack this thread.
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 15:43 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > "int i;" is not the same as "extern int i;".
> >
> > Sorry for my ignorance but I have been reading and searching for the
> > answer and I cannot tell what is the difference between "i
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 12:47:04 Joern Rennecke wrote:
Something which I miss in C++ is a way to declare that a function uses
an integral type to pass an enum value (in arguments or return value),
and then at function definition time only check that the integral type
is sufficently large to ho
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 12:47:04 Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Something which I miss in C++ is a way to declare that a function uses
> an integral type to pass an enum value (in arguments or return value),
> and then at function definition time only check that the integral type
> is sufficently large
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
I think the cleanups involved in using the target vector / class more, and
other cleanups involved in the natural approach to multi-target GCC of
which the target vector is a part, are more useful than the end result
(for which compiling large parts of the compiler mul
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure why you are singling me out.
You seemed to be actively working on the branch, and the c++ enum type
checks provide a motivation to make changes. Also, this issue should
be considered in general when people change their coding habits in order
for the cod
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> If you are building a non-C front end without bootstrapping you need at
> least 2.95:
>
> To build all languages in a cross-compiler or other configuration where
> 3-stage bootstrap is not perfor
2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
>> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
>> >> >
>> >> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
>> >> >
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >
> >> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
> >> >
> >> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
> >> > defining something, only on a declara
2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
>> >
>> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
>> > defining something, only on a declaration that is not a definition.
>>
>> But may it lead to some co
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> (I'm not personally convinced that a multi-targeted gcc is particularly
> useful, though I don't object if there is a general desire to support
> it.)
I think the cleanups involved in using the target vector / class more, and
other cleanups involved
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> BTW, why is this warned about?
> >
> > I imagine because in C it is not conventional to use "extern" when
> > defining something, only on a declaration that is not a definition.
>
> But may it lead to some confusion or subtle error? It seems ov
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> 2009/4/29 Sebastian Redl :
>> So MSC will warn about this construct, but GCC will not, due to its
>> whitespace rule:
>
> I think we should just remove the whitespace rule and implement the
> warning in C.
Actually it appears that the whitespace rule was already rem
Joern Rennecke writes:
> I've found some issues with gcc-in-cxx both specific to these
> targets, and specific to (parts of) compiler passes that are
> only compiled for a subset of all tagets, which include one or
> more of the above mentioned three.
I'd be happy to see and approve your patches
Richard Guenther writes:
>> * The C++ frontend emits some warnings on code which is known to be
>> never executed, which the C frontend does not. This leads to some
>> warnings compiling code in gcc. I think it is reasonable to fix this
>> in the C++ frontend.
>
> Or just amend the C fronten
2009/4/29 Sebastian Redl :
> So MSC will warn about this construct, but GCC will not, due to its
> whitespace rule:
I think we should just remove the whitespace rule and implement the
warning in C.
Cheers,
Manuel.
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>
>> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
>>
>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>
* The C++ frontend warns about "while (true);" when there is no
whitespace between the ')' and the ';'.
2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> I don't know the rationale for this warning. Is it to do with the C++0x
> specification that certain loops may be assumed to terminate?
I guess the rationale is that there is little use for while(true) ;
so it is pr
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > The question is not just one for bootstrapping a native compiler but also
> > one of what compiler can be used to build a cross compiler (such as that
> > with multiple targets), which is not bootstrapped in the usual GCC sense.
> > There we pre
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> * The C++ frontend warns about "while (true);" when there is no
> >> whitespace between the ')' and the ';'. The C frontend does not. I'm
> >> not sure how
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:21 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>
> > Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > >
> > > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
> > >
> > > I believe we ag
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
>
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> >
> > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
> >
> > I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
> > intersection
2009/4/29 Joseph S. Myers :
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> * The C++ frontend warns about "while (true);" when there is no
>> whitespace between the ')' and the ';'. The C frontend does not. I'm
>> not sure how to best handle this. It doesn't make much sense to warn
>>
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including
making sure
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including
making sure at an appropriate point that
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> * The C++ frontend warns about "while (true);" when there is no
> whitespace between the ')' and the ';'. The C frontend does not. I'm
> not sure how to best handle this. It doesn't make much sense to warn
> about this with -Wc++-compat. Sho
In order to be able to use namespaces in my endeavour to
support gcc with multiple targets, I've first done a merge
from the gcc-in-cxx branch.
For my initial implementation, I choose as configuration
--target=m32r-elf --with-extra-target-list='sh64-elf arc-elf32' .
I've found some issues with g
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I've finished my set of patches which fix -Wc++-compat to check for enum
> conversions which are valid in C++. Adding those checks forced a lot of
> changes in mainline to compile cleanly with -Wc++-compat. I have merged
> those changes
I've finished my set of patches which fix -Wc++-compat to check for enum
conversions which are valid in C++. Adding those checks forced a lot of
changes in mainline to compile cleanly with -Wc++-compat. I have merged
those changes over to the gcc-in-cxx branch. In the gcc directory
itself, exclu
37 matches
Mail list logo
