I have been trying repeatedly and in incrementally more rewarding stages
towards building a purely 64-bit GCC compiler on Solaris 10 sparc. I have no
need for the 32-bit libs at all and my entire toolchain is 64-bit only. There
are no 32-bit libs in /usr/local/lib nor do there need to be. Thus
Howdy,
The following piece of code:
=== snip ===
#include
struct warnme
{
bool member_;
warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
};
int main()
{
warnme wm(true);
std::cout << wm.member_ << std::endl;
return 0;
}
=== end snip ===
when compiled with g++ 4.7, gives me no war
GCC has the -Winit-self warning.
David
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Nery wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> The following piece of code:
>
> === snip ===
> #include
>
> struct warnme
> {
> bool member_;
> warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> warnme wm(true)
Dear All,
I have found a build problem with an application which I have reduced to the
following test case:
$ cat foomain.cc
//
// g++ foomain.cc foo01.cc foo02.cc -o foo.out
//
// g++ -c foomain.cc
// g++ -c foo01.cc
// g++ -c foo02.cc
//
// g++ foomain.o foo01.o foo02.o -o foo.out
//
int main(
Bruno Nery writes:
| Howdy,
>
| The following piece of code:
>
| === snip ===
| #include
>
| struct warnme
| {
| bool member_;
| warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
| };
>
| int main()
| {
| warnme wm(true);
| std::cout << wm.member_ << std::endl;
| return 0;
| }
| ===
Hello,
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:18 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> The following piece of code:
>
> === snip ===
> #include
>
> struct warnme
> {
> bool member_;
> warnme(bool member) : member_(member_) {}
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> warnme wm(true);
> std::cout << wm.memb
-Winit-self doesn't report it either (at least in g++ 4.7).
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> GCC has the -Winit-self warning.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Bruno Nery wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The following piece of code:
>>
>> === snip ==
Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we
need an account to report a bug?
--
Bruno Nery
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 12:18 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
>> Howdy,
>>
>> The following piece of code:
>>
>> === snip ===
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 13:22 -0800, Bruno Nery wrote:
> Twenty two might be a more manageable number, but still... why do we
> need an account to report a bug?
This issue has been raised just recently on the gcc-help mailing list.
See the thread:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2012-10/threads.html#
A good reason, stopping spammers - but why not allow a generic (e.g.
Google/Facebook/StackOverflow)/OpenID login? As the original poster of
that thread, I don't like to have to keep track of accounts (and
passwords) only for posting one bug.
Also, CAPTCHAs might be an option - or changing to a bug
> Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2
--
Eric Botcazou
> > Any pointers at all as to the error of my ways ?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2
nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse than before
:
Configure .. look good but lies :
$ ../gcc-4.7.2/configure --build=sparc64-sun-solaris2.10
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20121109 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20121109/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse than
> before :
Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly...
> However I am way way open to suggestion here.
You need to configure everything with --build=sparc64-sun-solaris2.10 and
compile everythi
> > nope. Been there .. done that and that fails badly .. in fact worse
> than
> > before :
>
> Yet this is the standard way and works flawlessly if done correctly...
I can not see my error here and am wondering what the issue is.
> > However I am way way open to suggestion here.
>
> You ne
Il 06/11/2012 03:43, DJ Delorie ha scritto:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> > Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
>> > deserving of a bump to 5.0.
> I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
> effects should have any impact on the version numbe
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Angelo Graziosi
wrote:
>
> $ cat foo01.cc
> #include "foo.hh"
>
> MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_TYPES
>
> $ cat foo02.cc
> #include "foo.hh"
>
> MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_TYPES
>
> $ cat foo.hh
>
> #define MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE(g) g(int)
>
> #define MYCLASS_INSTANTIATE_BASE(type) \
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >> I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
> >> major user-visible changes.
> > Or a new ABI for libstdc++, I gue
18 matches
Mail list logo
