Andrew Walrond wrote:
Michael Meissner wrote:
We have performance results that show GCC now delivers outstanding performance
on AMD's Quad-core Barcelona processors. We've just posted our SPECint results
tests with GCC 4.1.2 on AMD's Quad-core Barcelona processors. We just want to
thank all of
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Can't we remove this kind of message to some advocacy list. It is really
> just noise on the gcc development list.
>
When I berate the likes of Sun for not contributing, it would be
hypocritical not to welcome and encourage enthusiastic support from
others. The politics a
We can't seem to decide whether ISO C++ really forbids comparisons
between pointers and integers or not. The first two are for == and !=,
the second two are for <, >, <=, >=. Why the inconsistency?
typeck.c: error ("ISO C++ forbids comparison between pointer
and integer");
typeck.c:
On 19 September 2007 23:31, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I am committing the patch below to our coding conventions and will fix
> up the existing web pages accordingly.
Amusingly enough, this just came out today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7004661.stm
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't thi
Hello all,
I think the gcc compiler should not accept assignments to non-lvalues.
gcc does this however, but does not execute the assignment (probably the
assignment is executed on a copy, but that copy is entirely floating).
Here is my code:
#include
#include
#include
template class SuperAr
On 9/20/07, Michiel de Bondt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> struct string100 { char value[100]; };
> strcpy (a[0].value, "Non-lvalue assignment."); // illegal
So you basically have:
a.operator[](0).value
Where value ia an array, I cannot remember the specific rules here but
value decays to &valu
I'm testing our C++ code with
g++ (GCC) 4.3.0 20070919 (experimental)
That's SVN revision 128608, gcc_trunk.
I'm getting many errors like this:
% g++ -c changes_meaning.cpp
changes_meaning.cpp:8: error: declaration of 'typedef struct ns::foo
ns::bar::foo'
changes_meaning.cpp:4: error: changes mea
hello,
today i've spent a few hours debugging... consider the following code:
>8>8>8>8>8>8
// test.cpp
#include
#include
int prn(const char* fmt_);
int prn(const char* fmt_, ...) __attribute__((format(printf, 1, 2)));
int prn(const char* fmt_, va_list args_);
int p
On 9/20/07, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Compilation works with *many* other compilers incl. all older, released g++,
> Visual C++, and EDG-based compilers.
And that does not make the code valid.
> I spent some time with Google and also looked here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/g
Hi All.
I'm using GCC until I use Linux, and I've always used the compiler and
the C language just basically.
I've been made too basic usage of pre-processor macros(some constants,
conditionals, and other)...
For my surprise, it works different than I've always imagined...
To me, it simply "subst
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Yes it is intentional. It is an extension of an already existing
> error with non templates. The code is invalid, though the C++
> standard does make a mention, this does not have to be diagnostic.
Thanks for the quick reply! This is great, I like the change since it
enfor
On 9/20/07, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Yes it is intentional. It is an extension of an already existing
> > error with non templates. The code is invalid, though the C++
> > standard does make a mention, this does not have to be diagnostic.
>
>
On Thu, 2007-09-20 at 16:43 -0300, Bruno Moreira Guedes wrote:
> I'm using GCC until I use Linux, and I've always used the compiler and
> the C language just basically.
> I've been made too basic usage of pre-processor macros(some constants,
> conditionals, and other)...
This list is about develo
Using strings to show my point was not a good idea. You can add a field
"int number" to the struct and perform similar operations (with =
instead of strcpy).
But even with strings, gcc should give an error like: "strcpy(const
char*, const char*) does not exists". In case of a "typedef char
st
14 matches
Mail list logo
