Hi All,
As part of updating the OS/2 port of GCC from v4.4.x to v4.6.x I've hit
a snag where the passing of options to the linker is no longer working.
Previous OS/2 builds of gcc have supported -Zlinker on the command
line to pass the option to the linker.
With previous gcc versi
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:11 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>
>>> xlc -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti conftest.c
>>>
>>> fails. I don't think -fno-rtti -fno-exceptions does what GCC expects.
>>
>> Thanks for these data. I think -fno-rtti and -fno-
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/5/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > > Making tree or gimple a C++ class with inheritance and
>> > > whatever is indeed a huge waste of time and existing d
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On
On 9 April 2012 10:59, Paul Smedley wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As part of updating the OS/2 port of GCC from v4.4.x to v4.6.x I've hit a
> snag where the passing of options to the linker is no longer working.
>
> Previous OS/2 builds of gcc have supported -Zlinker on the command line
> to pass the o
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> These flags should be only used for stage2+ or when compiling with GCC.
> Did you try to bootstrap with xlc or did you use --disable-bootstrap? gcov.c
> is supposed to be compiled with the built GCC C++ compiler.
I was attempting to boot
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
> cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
> understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or would have been
> fixed long ago)?
Perhaps we should move this class of
I think removing an existing warning from -Wall would be a bad idea.
paul
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Gerald
Pfeifer
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 12:30 PM
To: Robert Dewar
Cc: Jonathan Wakely; James Cloos; gcc@gcc.gnu
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
>> cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
>> understood by everyone, and not easy to fix (or would have
On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cases of uninitialized variables well known to everyone, and well
understood by everyon
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:08 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Gerald Pfeifer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Robert Dewar wrote:
Do you really want me to file hundreds of bug reports that are for
cas
> That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
> is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
> introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
> Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default, most people would not have
> to learn y
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
We are in agreement. I was just explaining to Gerald that his proposal
would have been my first choice, but I am compromising by moving to
your suggestion. My complaint is the introduction of a new switch
just to accomodate warnings that should not
On 4/9/2012 1:29 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
Hopefully, it is it is going to be the default, mos
On 9 April 2012 18:29, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
>> is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
>> introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
>> Hopefully, it is it is going to be the
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
-Wdefault
might be better
On 4/9/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 4/5/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> How do you expect tree errors to become static? By using derived
>>> types everywhere? Note that this would only be possible in a
>>> _very_ limited sub-set of
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
> wouldn't have anything to do with standards conformance.
I agree.
I have been resisting to go the
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
>> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
>> wouldn't have anything to do with standards conforma
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012, Игорь wrote:
> I've set up a new mirror for GCC.
> Here are the details:
> Server name – Webhostinggeeks
> Server admin – Igor, whg@gmail.com
> Server location – Riga, Latvia
> Server address – http://mirrors.webhostinggeeks.com/
> Server protocol – http
> Connection speed
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
> using C++, though the two could be bundled into one patch. In any
> event, I agree that the conversion needs to provide value. Vectors
> and hash tables are a good e
On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
> > using C++, though the two could be bundled into one patch. In any
> > event, I agree that the conversion needs to provide valu
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
> > > using C++, though the two could be bundled into one pat
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
>>> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warning switch
>>> wouldn't have anyt
On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
>> > > using C++, thoug
Hi Jonathan,
On 09/04/12 21:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 9 April 2012 10:59, Paul Smedley wrote:
Hi All,
As part of updating the OS/2 port of GCC from v4.4.x to v4.6.x I've hit a
snag where the passing of options to the linker is no longer working.
Previous OS/2 builds of gcc have supported
On 10/04/12 07:17, Paul Smedley wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
On 09/04/12 21:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 9 April 2012 10:59, Paul Smedley wrote:
Hi All,
As part of updating the OS/2 port of GCC from v4.4.x to v4.6.x I've
hit a
snag where the passing of options to the linker is no longer working.
Pre
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2) can be combined
>>> by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, wi
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Diego Novillo wrote:
> The testing plan is, then, to go through this table to make sure that
> we can build all of them with C++ enabled for all stages.
>
> I have created a wiki page to track testing progress:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppBuildStatus
>
> My plea for help is t
"sa...@hederstierna.com" writes:
> GCC does warn if returning a pointer to a local variable (stack memory).
> But there are alot of more cases where GCC could possibly warn,
> eg. when references are made to local variables or stack memory.
>
> See this attached example code.
> GCC warns for firs
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually...
AS> It doesn't have to be short: -Wdefault-warnings.
I haven't looked at all of the replies since I posted, and I *had*
forgotten about -Wextra (I can't even remember how many years it has
been since I last read that secti
> Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
> reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean "warning" already, e.g. it's -Wall and not -Wall-warnings.
--
Eric Botcazou
32 matches
Mail list logo
