Ok, thank you for your answer, I missed that apparently.
Pierrick
On 18/06/2025 11:46, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:34:42AM +0200, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am currently reading the C23 standard along the pre-release GCC 16
>> documentations (users and
Hi David and everyone,
I am playing around with the GCC attribute system, and what I would like
to achieve is something like this:
```c
void foo ( int * [[new_attr]] ptr );
void bar (int * [[new_attr]] ptr )
{
// function with a definition
}
```
Now, this is working well from the attribute s
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 11:34:42AM +0200, Pierrick Philippe wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am currently reading the C23 standard along the pre-release GCC 16
> documentations (users and internals), and I noticed that there is no
> mention on how to create new attributes using the new C23 standard
> a
Hi everyone,
I am currently reading the C23 standard along the pre-release GCC 16
documentations (users and internals), and I noticed that there is no
mention on how to create new attributes using the new C23 standard
attribute specifier ('[[new_attr]]').
I mean, I believe it would be transparent
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 9:14 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 7:06 PM Segher Boessenkool
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:41:37AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > > WaA is decided by the sourceware maintainers. The request form says
> > > > "email addre
On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 3:28 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that is definitely not what
> > the user or, ahem, the FE author intended. The observed behavior is
> > that the program enters a
On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 7:06 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:41:37AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > WaA is decided by the sourceware maintainers. The request form says
> > > "email address of person who approved request", but that is not who has
> > > the fi
On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that is definitely not what
> the user or, ahem, the FE author intended. The observed behavior is
> that the program enters an infinite loop calling the main entry point,
> eventually exhausting
Snapshot gcc-12-20250618 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20250618/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:28:29 +0200
Richard Biener wrote:
> That means, the adjustment should end up unifying the FUNCTION_DECL
> used for all calls.
Thank you. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think that's what Bob
suspected.
> Btw, is there any way that the thing 'prog' calls can turn o
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 09:28
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Bob Dubner
> Subject: Re: harm in ARM
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 7:51 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > The COBOL FE emits code for a recent ARM VM that
11 matches
Mail list logo
