On 25/11/15 02:11, David Wohlferd wrote:
> The 'fix' I am proposing is to give warnings for every use of basic asm
> inside functions (top-level asm is not a problem).
I'm not sure that's such a great idea on its own.
My suggestion:
1. Clobber memory.
2. Document a rule which says that all r
Hi,
On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
> > evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
> >
> > http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/
On 24/11/2015 16:57, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > > We plan to do a GCC 5.3 release candidate at the end of next week
> > > followed by the actual release a week after that.
> > >
> > > So now is the time to look at your regression bugs in bugzilla and
> > > do some backporting for things already fi
On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
> programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
> due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
foo.bar(1).bar(2).bar(3), etc.
but does anyone a
On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Patch committed to upstream libtool, thanks for your understanding.
Great!
How can I have the patch backported to GCC trunk and 5-branch libtool,
and then rebuild configure with the appropriate versions of autoconf?
I have not been able t
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 11/24/2015 02:55 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 23/11/15 23:01, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
>>> of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
On 25 November 2015 at 19:38, wrote:
> I'm really wondering about this proposal. It seems that it could affect
> optimization. It also seems to be a precedent that may not be a good one to
> set. Consider the dozen or so "undefined behavior" examples in
> https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/papers/u
On 11/25/2015 11:49 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 11/25/2015 06:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
The motivating example in the paper suggests that many C++
programmers expect a left to right order of evaluation here
due to the commonality of constructs like chains of calls.
Sure, I often see
foo.ba
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20151125 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20151125/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
10 matches
Mail list logo
