On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
targets that need to be tested is large and I don't have access to all
these combinations.
Hello,
sorry for being slow
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 13:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
> I would expect most problems to be related to the host, and more
> specifically the compiler used to initiate the build, not so much the
> target. Or is this aiming specifically for targets that only get
> cross-compilers and thus don't have stag
For *-rtems* all test results are cross with tests run on simulators. We use a
native compiler bulit from the same source for testing. Newlib is the C library
and built at the same time.
Do we need to enable any special flags from our existing configure?
FWIW we have a few targets where the si
On 4/7/12 4:09 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
For *-rtems* all test results are cross with tests run on simulators.
We use a native compiler bulit from the same source for testing.
Newlib is the C library and built at the same time.
Do we need to enable any special flags from our existing configure?
> "GDR" == Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
GDR> Exactly. Our bugzilla databases has lot of requests in this spirit.
If that is so, then defaulting to -Wall will just generate even more
requests to turn that off.
I find it hard to image that anyone who does any significant amount of
compiling woul
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:46 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "GDR" == Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>
> GDR> Exactly. Our bugzilla databases has lot of requests in this spirit.
>
> If that is so, then defaulting to -Wall will just generate even more
> requests to turn that off.
>
> I find it hard to ima
James Cloos writes:
> GDR> Exactly. Our bugzilla databases has lot of requests in this spirit.
>
> If that is so, then defaulting to -Wall will just generate even more
> requests to turn that off.
You may well imagine. However, it isn't known. Turning it on by
default, at least for a while is
On 05/04/2012 10:46, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
>> we enable at -Wall by default.
>
> Which ones for example?
>
> Here is a (partial) list:
Your list seems a bit
Snapshot gcc-4.7-20120407 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20120407/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Dave Korn writes:
> IMHO we should move the -Wunused ones into -Wextra if we're going to turn on
> -Wall by default. The rest seem pretty reasonable defaults to me.
How about instead adding new "-Wstandard", which will be on by default,
and keeping -Wall / -Wextra the same (so as to not _remov
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:41 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 05/04/2012 10:46, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:39 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Btw, it would be more reasonable to enable a subset of warnings that
>>> we enable at -Wall by default.
>>
>> Which ones for example
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Dave Korn writes:
>> IMHO we should move the -Wunused ones into -Wextra if we're going to turn
>> on
>> -Wall by default. The rest seem pretty reasonable defaults to me.
>
> How about instead adding new "-Wstandard", which will be on by def
On 4/7/2012 6:57 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Dave Korn writes:
IMHO we should move the -Wunused ones into -Wextra if we're going to turn on
-Wall by default. The rest seem pretty reasonable defaults to me.
How about instead adding new "-Wstandard", which will be on by default,
and keeping -Wal
13 matches
Mail list logo
