Re: Listing a maintainer for libcilkrts, and GCC's Cilk Plus implementation generally?

Hi! Just to remind: it had been announced in , but more than a year later, this has still not been resolved. No merge of libcilkrts has been done from the upstream Intel s

Re: regression in C++ parsing performance between 4.9.3 and 5.3.1

> There is a significant slow down and increase in ram usage Please report it to Bugzilla rather than this list, thanks.

Re: Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel López-Ibáñez reports that even though he provides the "-Werror=return-type" option, the compiler doesn't flag the warning/error about a control reaching the end of a non-void function, due to the presence of the "-w" opt

Re: Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

I apologize for stating that you had reported the issue. I copy/pasted from your comment rather than the original report. The issue was reported by Teodor Petrov Kevin "Manuel López-Ibáñez" wrote: > > On 03/28/2016 01:56 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>> In Bugzilla PR # 70275, Manuel Lóp

gcc-5-20160329 is now available

Snapshot gcc-5-20160329 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160329/ 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

Re: Should a disabled warning be allowed to be promoted to an error(Bugzilla PR 70275)?

On Mon, 28 Mar 2016, Martin Sebor wrote: > The general rule of thumb documented in the manual is that more > specific options take precedence over more general ones, regardless > of where they appear on the command line: > > The combined effect of positive and negative forms [of warning > opt