On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I get strange warnings when I do arithmetic involving TYPE_MAX_VALUE
> (size_type_node), in particular this code:
>
> /* Multiplies MUL1 with MUL2, and adds ADD. Returns (size_t)-1 if the
> result cannot be be represented as a size_t val
Hi there,
Attached is a tentative patch to support using decltype as a
base-type-specifier (Re:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42603).
It should handle also the case where decltype is used as the start of a
nested-name-specifier when this is supported in the future.
Any feedback wel
On 20 January 2011 14:26, Adam Butcher wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Attached is a tentative patch to support using decltype as a
> base-type-specifier (Re:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42603).
>
> It should handle also the case where decltype is used as the start of a
> nested-name-speci
On Thu, January 20, 2011 4:43 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 20 January 2011 14:26, Adam Butcher wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Attached is a tentative patch ...
> > [snip]
>
> thanks for working on this. Patches should be sent to the gcc-patches
> list for review, you could then add the URL of the
Hello,
Attached the cpp example.
While I was trying to understand the problem (segfault), I found this:
In special_function_p function (calls.c), ECF_TM_OPS flag is returned for
all TM builtin call except BUILT_IN_TM_START.
Question: is it really intentional or missing?
Moreover since BUILT_I
I'm seeing the oddest thing with a function compiled like:
mpicc -std=gnu99 -O1 -g -m32 -pthread -msse -mno-sse2 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H
-I../../easel -I../../easel -I. -I.. -I. -I../../src -o fwdback.o -c
fwdback.c
using both gcc versions
gcc (GCC) 4.4.1 (on a 64 bit linux)
gcc (GCC) 4.2.3 (4.2.3-6m
* Richard Guenther:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> I get strange warnings when I do arithmetic involving TYPE_MAX_VALUE
>> (size_type_node), in particular this code:
>>
>> /* Multiplies MUL1 with MUL2, and adds ADD. Returns (size_t)-1 if the
>> result cannot be be
On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:47:49 -0800
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 01/06/2011 01:17 AM, Karel Gardas wrote:
> > BTW: This is on GCC Compile Farm IA64 machine. Now my question is: how
> > to solve this issue? Does GCC already support something Intel
> > discusses in 2008 here:
> > http://software.in
Hi.
I would like to tell that profiledboostrap does compile on 32 bit intel for
current 4.6 tree snapshot
and therefore 4.6 branch is not affected by this problem -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43085
evironment:
AFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium4 -msse2"
export CXXFLAGS_FOR_BUILD=${AFL
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110120 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110120/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 01/20/2011 01:26 PM, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
> So I would like to have "large data segment" feature!
> Can you elaborate what exactly needs to be implemented?
>
> From what I see:
> 0. We need additional flag for gcc: let's call it -mhuge-pic
>
> 1. We need to force GCC to generate any GP (r
This bogus size of -1 is causing an informational warning from VMS Debug
on IA64 VMS. It would be useful to us if approved and merged.
--Douglas Rupp
AdaCore
12 matches
Mail list logo