Please reply in CC to the GCC mailing list, so others can follow the
discussion.
On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 09:21 +0530, Subrata Biswas wrote:
> On 25 March 2012 03:59, Oleg Endo wrote:
> >
> > I might be misunderstanding the idea...
> > Let's assume you've got a program that doesn't compile, and you
Hi,
In tree-complex.c's function expand_complex_comparison, gcc just
expand comparison on complex
operands into comparisons on inner type, like:
D.5375_17 = REALPART_EXPR ;
D.5376_18 = IMAGPART_EXPR ;
g2.1_5 = COMPLEX_EXPR ;
D.5377_19 = REALPART_EXPR ;
D.5378_20 = IMAGPART_EXPR ;
g3.2_
Thank you sir for your excellent example.
On 25 March 2012 15:25, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Please reply in CC to the GCC mailing list, so others can follow the
> discussion.
>
> On Sun, 2012-03-25 at 09:21 +0530, Subrata Biswas wrote:
>> On 25 March 2012 03:59, Oleg Endo wrote:
>> >
>> > I might be mi
Hello All,
It seems that several Linux distributions are shipping a GCC 4.7 compiled by a
C++
compiler (probably GCC).
This affects plugins makers, as has been already discussed.
Do we have (e.g. for plugin makers) a nice way to know if a given GCC
distribution was
compiled in C or in C++ mod
On 3/25/12 1:19 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
When GCC won't be compilable any more by a C (not C++) compiler, should we make
that a
prominent& documented change? I believe it should also be reflected in our
configure
machinery (by rejecting the build of GCC when a C++ compiler is not ava
> Yes. For GCC 4.8, we should move to:
>
> - Build all stages with C++
> - Remove the option to go back to C.
That would mean you can start to use C++ in the compiler code although, AFAIK,
we are still waiting for the long-promised C++ Coding Standard. That seems
like putting the car before th
On 3/25/12 1:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yes. For GCC 4.8, we should move to:
- Build all stages with C++
- Remove the option to go back to C.
That would mean you can start to use C++ in the compiler code although, AFAIK,
we are still waiting for the long-promised C++ Coding Standard. That s
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:04:56 -0400
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 3/25/12 1:28 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:25:34 -0400
[...]
> > I would suggest then to put in a core header file (even used by plugins)
> > something like
> > #ifndef __cpluscplus
> > #error GCC and its
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
> plain C? I don't really know (we do have GCCPLUGIN_VERSION, but should a
> plugin use
> ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX)?
Actually, I tend to believe that this is really
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Nothing above tell me about GCC being compiled in C++ flavor
I believe the ones that are not compiled with a C++ compiler have a
--disable-xxx-something
in the output of gcc -v
-- Gaby
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:30:31 +0200
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
How can a plugin know that cc1 was compiled with C++ or just with
plain C?
nm thefile | grep _Z
(possibly nm -D)
You can also look for --disable-bootstrap or --disable-build-with
I just stumbled into this video animation showing a graphical
representation of GCC's source tree over the years.
It is a bit long, but it's amusing to recognize big events in GCC
(addition of Java, Ada, tree-ssa, etc) over time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAlhVOZ8qQ
It lasts around 3
> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). No point waiting to settle a
> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it.
That isn't what was decided when the transition to C++ was proposed though.
It w
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). No point waiting to settle a
>> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it.
>
> That isn't what was d
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> To start *building* in C++, I do not think we need to agree on the
> coding guidelines. We are already doing stages 2 and 3, doing stage 1
> is a straightforward next step.
I agree with Diego that to start building only with a C++ compiler
Hello Everyone,
I am currently trying to take certain functions (marked by certain
attributes) and create vector version along with the scalar versions of the
function. For example, let's say I have a function my_add that is marked with a
certain attribute, I am trying to clone it into m
-Original Message-
From: Subrata Biswas [mailto:subrata.i...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:22 PM
To: Oleg Endo
Cc: gcc
Subject: Re: GSoC :Project Idea(Before final Submission) for review and feedback
Thank you sir for your excellent example.
On 25 March 2012 15:25, Oleg En
Hi gcc@gcc.gnu.org!
Your friend, DEATH of Google (URGENT), thought that you would be interested in
Krupnik 40%, 1.80l from J&B Brands.
Friend
Most people just can't believe it
This can make you $435 in an HOUR
At NO COST
http://de.tk/JBoD3
SERIOUSLY.
There is nothing to do here, just
18 matches
Mail list logo
