On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:22:35 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >
> > But GDB features a useful custom expression operator '@':
> > https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/Arrays.html
> >
> > I have problems implementing '@' into GCC, could you suggest at which place
> > should I call build_
On 16 March 2015 at 09:32, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:22:35 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> Thus, the question is what info GDB needs from GCC to be able to print
>> the contents of the array.
>
> Variable with an array type in DWARF.
How does it work then for pointers?
Hi!
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:22:13 +0100, Enrico Calore wrote:
> I would like to try GCC 5 with nvptx-tools on a NVIDIA Jetson board
> (armhf architecture), may I ask to you if it is supposed to work on that
> architecture?
We have not tried this. To enable offloading for ARM targets, you'll
need
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:33:26 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 09:32, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 04:22:35 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> Thus, the question is what info GDB needs from GCC to be able to print
> >> the contents of the array.
> >
> > V
On 16 March 2015 at 09:58, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> I expected to learn GCC parser on this IMO-simpler case so one can later
> implement for example the '{TYPE} ADDR' GDB extension, dropping C++ class
> protections,
There's the -fno-access-control flag to disable access checking, so I
would have ex
On 16 March 2015 at 10:58, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> If it is really difficult to implement '@' in GCC then yes, that's the other
> way. I expected to learn GCC parser on this IMO-simpler case so one can later
> implement for example the '{TYPE} ADDR' GDB extension, dropping C++ class
> protections
>> Thanks for the feedback, they were really helpful. I have updated the patch.
>> Please review this.
>> Also, although I run `make check` while compiling gcc (with bootstrap
>> enabled), I'm not sure if 'omp' related tests were exercised.
>> I'm still unfamiliar with several components of gcc.
> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes:
Jan> I have problems implementing '@' into GCC, could you suggest at which place
Jan> should I call build_array_type_nelts()? Or is it the right way at all?
Jan> +case ATSIGN_EXPR:
Jan> + orig_op0 = op0 = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0);
Jan> + orig_op
> From: lopeziba...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:16:55 +0100
> Subject: Re: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without
> updating the nodes).
> To: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; hiradi...@msn.com
>
>>> Thanks for the
On 16 March 2015 at 15:51, Aditya K wrote:
> I started looking at the steps to test gcc, (https://gcc.gnu.org/Testing_GCC):
>
> In the first step: to install prerequisites 'dejagnu', tcl and Expect
> - The link to dejagnu does not have any information. for tcl and expect
> there are no links.
On 16 March 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> "DejaGnu" is not meant to be a link, but the wiki automatically treats
> any MixedCase word as a link.
I've fixed that now.
On 16 March 2015 at 16:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16 March 2015 at 15:54, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> "DejaGnu" is not meant to be a link, but the wiki automatically treats
>> any MixedCase word as a link.
>
> I've fixed that now.
We can actually link to the DejaGNU page if someone is interest
Hi,
In a discussion on comp.lang.c, the subject of "named parameters" (or
"designated parameters") has come up again. This is a feature that some
of us feel would be very useful in C (and in C++). I think it would be
possible to include it in the language without leading to any conflicts
with ex
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015, David Brown wrote:
In a discussion on comp.lang.c, the subject of "named parameters" (or
"designated parameters") has come up again. This is a feature that some
of us feel would be very useful in C (and in C++). I think it would be
possible to include it in the language wi
On 03/14/15 22:40, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
Hello All:
I am proposing the new approach to Loop transformation as given below in the
example For the loops with
conditional expression inside the Loops. The Loop body should be reducible
control flow graph. The iteration
space is partitioned into
On March 16, 2015 7:15:23 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 03/14/15 22:40, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>> Hello All:
>>
>> I am proposing the new approach to Loop transformation as given below
>in the example For the loops with
>> conditional expression inside the Loops. The Loop body should be
>re
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 19:52:52 +0300, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> I have one more question :)
> This testcase seems to be correct... or not?
>
> #pragma omp declare target
> extern int G;
> #pragma omp end declare target
>
> int G;
>
> int main ()
> {
> #pragma omp target update to(G
> From: lopeziba...@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 17:04:58 +0100
> Subject: Re: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without
> updating the nodes).
> To: jwakely@gmail.com
> CC: hiradi...@msn.com; tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc@gcc.g
On 03/16/2015 05:06 PM, David Brown wrote:
Basically, the idea is this:
int foo(int a, int b, int c);
void bar(void) {
foo(1, 2, 3); // Normal call
foo(.a = 1, .b = 2, .c = 3) // Same as foo(1, 2, 3)
foo(.c = 3, .b = 2, .a = 1) // Same as foo(1, 2, 3)
}
If on
> >If only the first variant is allowed (with the named parameters in the
> >order declared in the prototype), then this would not affect code
> >generation at all - the designators could only be used for static error
> >checking.
> >
> >If the second variant is allowed, then the parameters could b
Note that a proposal for named arguments was recently presented to the C++
standards committee [1], and they did not seem receptive to it [2].
The proposal was for a different syntax (name : value), but the objections were
not related to the syntax.
Regards,
Nate
[1] http://open-std.org/JTC1/S
> From: hiradi...@msn.com
> To: lopeziba...@gmail.com; jwakely@gmail.com
> CC: tbsau...@tbsaunde.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for adding splay_tree_find (to find elements without
> updating the nodes).
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 18:45:22
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Law [mailto:l...@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:45 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Richard Biener; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: Proposal for another approach for Loop transf
23 matches
Mail list logo
