On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
> is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
Apart from the fact that classes are private by default and structs
are not. They may be similar for layout purposes, and
> On May 5, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote:
>
>> On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
>> is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
>
> Apart from the fact that classes are private by defaul
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:33:38PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
[snipped]
> (3) Note that ppc is both easier and more complicated.
>
> There we have 8 4-bit registers, although most of the integer
> non-comparisons only write to CR0. And the vector non-comparisons
> only write to CR1, th
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:42:02AM +, Aditya K wrote:
> I was able to successfully bootstrap gcc by using clang as the stage 1
> compiler. I configured gcc using the following arguments.
>
> ../configure --disable-multilib --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
> CC=/work/llvm/install-r
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:00:59AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 5 May 2015 at 05:58, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > These two are bogus and really clang in GCC's mind. The main reason
> > is the standard says struct and class are the same thing.
>
> Apart from the fact that classes are private by d
On 5 May 2015 at 11:23, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> Saying forward declaration should be done with class is a value choice
> you've made.
Yes.
> Given forward declarations with struct and class are
> interchangable it seems like a perfectly valid choice to me to decide
> you don't care to bother
> CC: hiradi...@msn.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: pins...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 01:11:38 -0700
> To: renato.go...@linaro.org
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 5, 2015, at 1:00 AM, Renato Golin
Hi all,
For the following illustrative code,
double f1(int x) { return (double)(float)x; } --> return (double)x;
int f2(double x) { return (int)(float)x; } --> return (int)x;
Is it Okay for the compiler to do the simplifications shown above with
fast-match enabled?
Regards,
Renlin Li
Hi all,
I'm looking at implementing target attributes for aarch64 and I have some
questions about the hooks involved.
I haven't looked at this part of the compiler before, so forgive me if some of
them seem obvious. I couldn't
figure it out from the documentation
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedoc
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 12:33:38PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> (1) Each target defines a set of constraint strings,
> (2) A new target hook post-processes the asm_insn, looking for the
> new constraint strings. The hook expands the condition prescribed
> by the string, adjusting the
Hi Kyrill,
you are right it's not easy to get its way among all those macros, my
main source of inspiration for ARM was the x86 implementation.
You can have a look at the ARM implementation to start with (on
gcc-patches, under review). That would be best not to diverge too much
aarch64 might hav
On 05/05/2015 12:42 AM, Aditya K wrote:
I was able to successfully bootstrap gcc by using clang as the stage 1
compiler. I configured gcc using the following arguments.
../configure --disable-multilib --enable-bootstrap --enable-languages=c,c++
CC=/work/llvm/install-release/bin/clang
CXX=/wor
Hi Christian,
On 05/05/15 15:25, Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi Kyrill,
you are right it's not easy to get its way among all those macros, my
main source of inspiration for ARM was the x86 implementation.
Yeah, I've been looking at that and rs6000 for some perspective.
You can have a look at th
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Since it is pre-processed, there is no real reason to overlap this with
> the constraints namespace; we could have e.g. "=@[xy]" (and "@[xy]" for
> inputs) mean the target needs to do some "xy" transform here.
In fact, standing out vis
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 08:37:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > Since it is pre-processed, there is no real reason to overlap this with
> > the constraints namespace; we could have e.g. "=@[xy]" (and "@[xy]" for
> > inputs) mean
So, really no ideas on this issue? Or this behavior is considered normal?
2015-04-26 1:38 GMT+03:00 Max Dmitrichenko :
> Hi all!
>
> I've faced with strange behavior when I investigated a bug on a rather
> new distros of Linux. I'm not sure that it is a bug of gcc, but may be
> someone can bring s
On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 09:01:03PM +0300, Max Dmitrichenko wrote:
> So, really no ideas on this issue? Or this behavior is considered normal?
It is not a bug, it is how STB_GNU_UNIQUE symbols work.
With gcc 4.8.4, or 4.9.2, 5.1 or trunk you can actually use -fno-gnu-unique
if you are ok with its c
Hi,
in gcc/libgomp/env.c
the ICV run-sched-var is defined as
run_sched_var = GFS_DYNAMIC
It would be more natural to define it as GFS_STATIC, since
the default schedule is also static in gomp. Is there any reason
for this decision?
Both ICVs run-sched-var and def-sched-var are implementation d
On 5 May 2015 at 12:39, Aditya K wrote:
> There are however, other differences between class and struct
> (http://stackoverflow.com/a/999810/811335) i.e.,
>
> 1. In absence of an access-specifier for a base class, public is assumed when
> the derived class is declared struct and private is assume
On 05/05/2015 07:27 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
For the following illustrative code,
double f1(int x) { return (double)(float)x; } --> return (double)x;
int f2(double x) { return (int)(float)x; } --> return (int)x;
Is it Okay for the compiler to do the simplifications shown above with
fast-ma
Gentlemen!
I believe I have done as much as is reasonable for a merge, but I'd like
to get your opinion before I post a huge patch to the list.
The branch bootstraps with one regression in GCC
(gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/stacked-qualified-types-3.c) and none for GDB.
The GCC regression is a missed
Snapshot gcc-5-20150505 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20150505/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
Greetings
Please .. where (in what file, dir) of the gcc (4.9.1) source should I
rummage in order to change the sequence of instructions eventually
emitted to do a function call?
I mean to target the sequence of saves of to-be-clobbered registers,
change of stack/frame pointer ... and the rever
On 05/05/2015 08:27 AM, Renlin Li wrote:
Hi all,
For the following illustrative code,
double f1(int x) { return (double)(float)x; } --> return (double)x;
int f2(double x) { return (int)(float)x; } --> return (int)x;
Is it Okay for the compiler to do the simplifications shown above with
fast-ma
So, I analyzed other warnings and following is the list of relevant warning
that I could collect. Hope this is useful.
gcc/ipa-icf.c:508:12: warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand
side of this comparison
../../gcc/ipa-icf.c:508:12: warning: logical not is only applied to the left
> On May 5, 2015, at 8:13 PM, Aditya K wrote:
>
> So, I analyzed other warnings and following is the list of relevant warning
> that I could collect. Hope this is useful.
>
>
> gcc/ipa-icf.c:508:12: warning: logical not is only applied to the left hand
> side of this comparison
> ../../gc
> CC: jwakely@gmail.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: pins...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 20:19:04 -0700
> To: hiradi...@msn.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> On May 5, 2015, at
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Aditya K wrote:
>
>
>
>> CC: jwakely@gmail.com; renato.go...@linaro.org; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> From: pins...@gmail.com
>> Subject: Re: Compiler warnings while compiling gcc with clang
>> Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 20:19:04 -0700
28 matches
Mail list logo
