Tom Tromey wrote:
"Gabriele" == Gabriele SVELTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Gabriele> Good to know, TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT () is exactly what I was
Gabriele> looking for, unfortunately it's description in tree.def
Gabriele> isn't exactly crystal clear :P Thank you very much
This would be a great op
Status
==
We are in Stage 3. When we reach 100 open regressions, we will go to
regression-only mode. When we approach the 4.3.0 release, we will
create a branch, and open Stage 1 for 4.4.0.
Quality Data
Significant progress has been made during the last week, also thanks to
on
Is this proposed patch still being considered, or has it been applied/withdrawn?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01846.html
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
Hi all
I come to you looking for some light ;) We are developing an application
that needs to link statically math.h. I've been looking for libm.a for
Tru64 Alpha with no success at all. System comes with .so so but i think
it's not possible converting .so into .a
Any help is welcome.
Thanks
Adr
On 11/01/2008, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is this proposed patch still being considered, or has it been
> applied/withdrawn?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01846.html
>
It hasn't been applied or withdrawn.
>From the comments in PR34118, I think the status i
Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:34:29AM +0200, Rehno Lindeque wrote:
Just a note: Operator precedence is taught as logical AND comes before
OR in logic courses. So it is a sort of a standard mathematical
convention just like + and *. In fact, OR is even represented as a +
in some nota
On 11/01/2008, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/01/2008, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is this proposed patch still being considered, or has it been
> > applied/withdrawn?
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-11/msg01846.html
> >
>
> It hasn't be
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:34:29AM +0200, Rehno Lindeque wrote:
> Just a note: Operator precedence is taught as logical AND comes before
> OR in logic courses. So it is a sort of a standard mathematical
> convention just like + and *. In fact, OR is even represented as a +
> in some notations. Howe
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 05:01:02PM +0100, Adrián Bravo Navarro wrote:
> I come to you looking for some light ;) We are developing an application
> that needs to link statically math.h. I've been looking for libm.a for
> Tru64 Alpha with no success at all. System comes with .so so but i think
> it's
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >I don't see any a priori problem with changing to match the C front end.
> > We could of course change some of the pedwarns into errors if we really
> >think they ought to be errors. Or, some of them could be ordinary
> >warnings when not -pedantic, and pedwarns when -peda
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I think Jason's input would be helpful. I remember having a discussion
about this years ago (1998?), but I don't remember the complete
rationale. I think the idea was that we wanted many of these things
(ugly old ARM-era C++ things) to be errors, but didn't want to make
/include --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20080111 (experimental) [trunk revision 131004] (GCC)
I get the following:
==14240== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 5 from 1)
==14240== malloc/free: in use at exit: 310,961 bytes in 1,036 blocks.
==14240
Joe Buck wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>> I don't see any a priori problem with changing to match the C front end.
>>> We could of course change some of the pedwarns into errors if we really
>>> think they ought to be errors. Or, some of them could be ordinary
>>> warnings when not -pedantic, and
es=c,fortran --disable-libmudflap --enable-libgomp
> --with-mpfr-lib=/home/jerry/gcc/usr/lib
> --with-mpfr-include=/home/jerry/gcc/usr/include --disable-bootstrap
> Thread model: posix
> gcc version 4.3.0 20080111 (experimental) [trunk revision 131004] (GCC)
>
> I get the foll
Suppose we dump the GIMPLE tree into a file by using gcc option. Is it
possible to import the GIMPLE file into the gcc and generate the target
code?
Thanks a lot for your help.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Is-it-possible-to-import-a-gimple-file-into-gcc-so-to-generate-
Jerry DeLisle wrote:
With the Fortran test case I am using for PR34722. I did a valgrind
check with the following command:
valgrind --leak-check=full f951 inquire_12.f90
Here is a reduced test case. I will submit a PR. It has nothing to do with my
iostat patch for pr34722.
program gamsana
Good morning,
I've got a codebase that's a hundred years old, started in life on Sun3
and have evolved to 32-Bit X86 Linux (Fedora 5). We're trying to move
to 64-Bit now and this same code that has compiled for years is barking
about operators cannot be overloaded.
This is a Fedora 8 x86-64 mach
On 2008-01-11 11:30:12 -0800, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> With the Fortran test case I am using for PR34722. I did a valgrind
> check with the following command:
>
> valgrind --leak-check=full f951 inquire_12.f90
>
> The possible problem in mpfr has been around a while.
[...]
> I get the following:
>
sss
-libgomp
--with-mpfr-lib=/home/jerry/gcc/usr/lib
--with-mpfr-include=/home/jerry/gcc/usr/include --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.3.0 20080111 (experimental) [trunk revision 131004] (GCC)
I get the following:
==14240== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 5
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080111 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080111/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Dec 19, 2007 3:02 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My specific candidate for exclusion from -Wall is this one:
>
> if (a && b || c && d)
>
> which yields (as you know) advice to parenthesize the two && pairs.
To make this discussion a bit more concrete, the attached patch
removes this
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A warning that flagged code like
>
> if (c1 || c2 && c3)
>...
>
> would swamp users in warnings, since this kind of code is extremely
> common, and this isn't the kind of thing that anyone who's not a total C
> beginner has trouble with.
That is what -
Haizhou LING <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Suppose we dump the GIMPLE tree into a file by using gcc option. Is it
> possible to import the GIMPLE file into the gcc and generate the target
> code?
No.
The LTO project is working toward making something like that possible.
Ian
On 1/11/08 3:36 PM, Haizhou LING wrote:
Suppose we dump the GIMPLE tree into a file by using gcc option. Is it
possible to import the GIMPLE file into the gcc and generate the target
code?
Not yet, but it's being worked on.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/LinkTimeOptimization
Diego.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:24:46PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > A warning that flagged code like
> >
> > if (c1 || c2 && c3)
> >...
> >
> > would swamp users in warnings, since this kind of code is extremely
> > common, and this isn't the kind o
> 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/
On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 19:16 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> IIRC, the bug happened building either libgcc or newlib. If you want
> to revert my latest patch in a local source tree and just try a build,
> it's likely to show you an example ;-)
It was unwind-dw2.c in the m32cm libgcc multilib.
The prob
"Doug Gregor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To make this discussion a bit more concrete, the attached patch
> removes this particular warning from -Wparentheses and puts it into a
> new warning, -Wprecedence, that is not enabled by -Wall. This is
> slightly more fine-grained than what -Wparenthese
"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
Also known as "nooo, it's not *inlined*, it's just the call
being removed because the called function was found to be
pure/const". :)
This happens when you try to synthesize executable test-cases
and you need e.g. a call with such-and-such parameters, but the
called function doesn't do anything; i
31 matches
Mail list logo
