On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 21:30, Andrew Dean wrote:
>
> > > Whereas the most recent reported results (10.0.0 20191118) show only 2
> > unexpected failures and no unexpected successes in the gcc summary.
> >
> > Which results are you looking at?
> > Two failures sounds very low, it's probably not runn
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 23:52, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> I've just pushed a new trial conversion:
>
> https://gitlab.com/rearnsha/gcc-trial2-20191130
>
> The main differences between this and the previous trial are:
> - The author attributions should now be fixed, please let me know if you
>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 23:52, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > I've just pushed a new trial conversion:
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/rearnsha/gcc-trial2-20191130
> >
> > The main differences between t
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 05/12/2019 10:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 23:52, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>&g
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> wrote:
> >
> > On 05/12/2019 10:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 10:25, Jonathan Wakely
> > > wrote:
> > >>
&
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 16:44, Michael Matz wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> (oh a flame bait :) )
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> > So, I formally propose that we lift this characters per line restriction
> > from IBM punch card (80) to mainframe line printer (132).
> >
> > Tasks:
> >
> >
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 20:07, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:03:43PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > C++17 introduces a nice feature, with rationale similar to declaring
> > variables in a for-loop init-statement:
> >
>
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 22:19, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:56:35PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 20:07, Segher Boessenkool
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 05:03:43PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > &g
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 22:19, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Or you could write
>
> auto __c = (__builtin_memcmp(&*__first1, &*__first2, __len) <=> 0);
> if (__c)
> return __c;
>
> which is much easier to read, to my eyes anyway. And it is exactly the
> same for the compiler.
In this ca
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 06:22, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 10:14 PM li zi wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > We are using gcc in our projects and we found some of the C standard
> > functions (like memcpy, strcpy) used in gcc may induce security
> > vulnerablities like buffer overflo
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 02:25, Feng Xue OS wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to alter some information of an existing Bugzilla tracker, such as
> assignee, but found there is no entrance in page of the Bugzilla tracker to
> do this. How can I get it?
Usually that's restricted to GCC developers, using
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> I wouldn't bother with that. There are known defects in the version of
> reposurgeon that I used to produce that which have since been fixed. It
> was *never* the point of that upload to ask for correctness checks on
> the conversion
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:36, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
> > On 11/12/2019 15:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Dec 2019 at 15:03, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > >> I wouldn't bother w
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 09:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm not an admin there; CCing the Overseers.
>
> On 2019-12-12T01:58:46+, Feng Xue OS wrote:
> > I have a sourceware.org account, but can not correlate the account with
> > Bugzilla login.
>
> Yes: 'gcc.gnu.org' is a separate Bu
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 09:29, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
> On Dez 12 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2019 at 09:19, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I'm not an admin there; CCing the Overseers.
> >>
>
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >
> > > I've attached a sample from the start of the fixed list - the full list
> > > is far
> > > too big to post to give a flavour of how t
On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 07:19, 刘 加权 wrote:
>
> cmd 1 : ./configure --disable-multilib --prefix=/usr/local
> --with-mpc=/usr/local --with-mpfr=/usr/local --with-gmp=/usr/local && make
> -j4 && sudo make install
> cmd 2 : ./configure --disable-multilib --prefix=/usr/local && make -j4
> &&
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 09:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2019 09:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 00:02, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 12:33, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2019 12:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 11:50, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/12/2019 09:27, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On Thu,
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 12:42, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 19/12/2019 12:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 12:33, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 19/12/2019 12:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>> On Th
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 14:29, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
> > Best of all would be a pull request on
> > https://gitlab.com/esr/gcc-conversion/tree/master to update bugdb.py
> > directly.
>
> Note if doing that, it helps to check "Allow commits f
These scraped "INVALID" as the component from the changelog, because
it said "libgfortran/24685":
revert: re PR libfortran/24685 (real(16) formatted input is broken for
huge values (gfortran.dg/default_format_2.f90) [checkme: INVALID SVN
r142840])
revert: re PR libfortran/24685 (real(16) formatted
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 15:47, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > These scraped "INVALID" as the component from the changelog, because
> > it said "libgfortran/24685":
>
> "INVALID" means the PR
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 15:49, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
>
> > > Done. https://gitlab.com/esr/gcc-conversion/merge_requests/25 fixes
> > > (most of?) the most egregious ones, like fortran fixes with c++ PR
> > > numbers and vice versa. Jakub and I
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 16:26, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 15:49, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >
> > > > Done. https://gitlab.com/esr/gcc-conversion/merge_requests/25 fixes
> > &g
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 16:33, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 15:49, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Done
On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 11:49, lindorx wrote:> I want
to know how to cpmpile the specified executable format with GCC. I
use GCC on the Windows platform.But I want to compile the ELF format
file.
You need a cross compiler.
But this is the wrong mailing list for your question. Please use the
gcc-
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 16:05, Qing Zhao wrote:
>
> Thanks a lot for all these help.
>
> So, currently, if GCC compilation aborts due to this reason, what’s the best
> way for the user to resolve it?
> I added “#pragma GCC optimize (“O1”) to the large routine in order to
> workaround this issue.
>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:30, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > I've attached an updated list to this mail, which removes the items
> > we've analysed. There are 531 remaining.
>
> With the current version of the scri
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 21:41, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:30, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've att
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > I've sent another pull request fixing another 20. Here is the list
> > with those 20 removed (and this still includes the libcpp vs
> > preprocessor ones that
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 02:00, Jerry wrote:
>
> In the following git log entry, I made a typo on the PR number in the
> libgfortran ChangeLog file. I noticed this right after the git commit,
> while editing the git log.
>
> So I quit the edit without saving and git reported that the commit was
> abo
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 06:57, Yu <17671260...@163.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have some questions about developing my own compiler plugin. I tried to
> develop it using
> riscv-gnu-toolchain(https://github.com/riscv/riscv-gnu-toolchain), but it
> couldn't find following header files.
Which head
On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 at 16:09, Erick Ochoa wrote:
> Do you mean something like taking the address of a struct and adding an offset
> to access a field?
Yes, the following code is valid:
struct S { int unused; int used; };
static_assert( sizeof(S) == 8 );
S s[4];
int* s2_used = (int*)((char*)s + 20)
On Mon, 6 Jan 2020 at 13:37, Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 1/6/20 2:29 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 06.01.20 13:30, Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> >> On 06.01.20 11:03, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >>> +GCC
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 1:52 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> In an archive test rebu
On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 22:07, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ class BranchUpdate(AbstractUpdate):
> # the update unless we have had a chance to verify that these hooks
> # work well with those branches.
> assert (self.ref_name.startswith('refs/heads/')
> +
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 13:06, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > Could you avoid the double negative here? And the error message could
> > be more specific to the actual error by testing the two cases
> > separately, e.g.
>
>
Now that I've switched my local git tree to the new repo (by changing
the URL for the 'origin' remote, and adding the old one as a 'gcc-old'
remote) I've been experimenting with these commands to switch some of
the ~400 local branches to be based on the new repo instead of the
git-svn mirror.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 18:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> Now that I've switched my local git tree to the new repo (by changing
> the URL for the 'origin' remote, and adding the old one as a 'gcc-old'
> remote) I've been experimenting with these commands t
I imagine a lot of people are going to feel lost in the first few
weeks of using Git.
If you are stuck or confused about using Git for GCC development and
too embarrassed to ask in public, feel free to contact me on IRC. I'm
jwakely on OFTC, redi on Freenode.
It would be nice if other experienced
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 18:09, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> Not sure as I just checked, but is the gcc webpage for contributing updated
> for git or is it the same contributing guidelines but with git?
The guidelines are the same. References to svn will be updated.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 23:23, Gary Oblock wrote:
>
> I'm using the recommended old git mirror based scripts...
> Where are the new scripts documented? Note, I looked on
> gcc.gnu.org and could find noting.
Which scripts are you referring to?
On 9 January 2017 at 14:22, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 9 January 2017 at 14:15, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing
>>> MISRA coding standards check
On 9 January 2017 at 14:15, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 01/09/2017 08:58 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>> I don't know about CERT-C, but one of the challenges of implementing
>> MISRA coding standards checking in gcc is that the MISRA documents are
>> not free. They are cheap (about $10, I think), but s
On 14 January 2017 at 12:21, Unknown wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I found the official GCC page for manuals[1].
> But unfortunately, the libstdc++ docs for my compiler version (4.9.4)
> cannot be accessed due to broken links on the webpage.
>
> These are the ones that do not work presently:
>
> GCC-4.9.4 Manua
On 15 January 2017 at 01:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14 January 2017 at 12:21, Unknown wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I found the official GCC page for manuals[1].
>> But unfortunately, the libstdc++ docs for my compiler version (4.9.4)
>> cannot be accessed d
On 19 January 2017 at 18:58, Tcll wrote:
> I can't seem to find a download of gcc 5.x+ amd64 trusty.
>
> my computer has no internet and needs a gcc update before I can build
> a downladed source.
This is the wrong mailing list for help using or installing GCC.
Normally you should use the gcc-h...
On 20 January 2017 at 06:28, Tcll wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> :
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
On 25 January 2017 at 22:30, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 04:36:13PM +0100, FX wrote:
>> I am trying to determine what is the status of the powerpc-apple-darwin
>> target for GCC. The last released version of GCC for which a successful
>> build is reported is 4.9.1
>> (htt
On 11 February 2017 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> The documentation for -Wno-non-template-friend refers to "non-templatized
>> friend functions" and "templatized functions". I don't see the term
>> "templatized" used anywhere in the C++ standard.
On 11 February 2017 at 20:36, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 02/11/2017 06:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 11 February 2017 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The docum
I've answered on gcc-help instead.
On 12 February 2017 at 00:55, David Guillen Fandos wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have the following function
> std::tuple getRawIdx(uint16_t tidx) {
> return std::make_tuple(localidx.entries[tidx].indx_ptr,
> localidx.entries[tidx].indx_size);
> }
>
> Where s is a str
On 15 February 2017 at 15:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 11 February 2017 at 20:36, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>> On 02/11/2017 06:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11 February 2017 a
On 21 February 2017 at 14:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 February 2017 at 14:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>> There is no flag to suppress that error or demote it to a warning, is there?
>>> Could be
On 21 February 2017 at 14:51, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 03:44:17PM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> There is no flag to suppress that error or demote it to a warning, is there?
>> Could be useful when adapting large code bases to C++17 incrementally.
>
> It is a warning in C++
On 22 February 2017 at 05:52, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Many of the users of GCJ and GNU Classpath do not know they are users
> and, even if they do know, are not aware that it is being considered
> for removal from the GCC nor aware of this mailing list.
It's not being considered for removal, it has alread
On 10 March 2017 at 06:39, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been trying to get some clean test results on Cygwin and have
> encountered a number of problems. I've opened a report for the one I'm most
> concerned with (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79867). When an
> executable
On 12 March 2017 at 13:21, Daniel Krügler wrote:
> I'm now working on
>
> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2861
>
> The new wording state is now equivalent to basic_string_view, whose
> current implementation doesn't bother verifying the requirement, so
> this code (which as UB) cur
On 13 March 2017 at 11:33, Daniel Krügler wrote:
> 2017-03-13 11:56 GMT+01:00 Jonathan Wakely :
>> On 12 March 2017 at 13:21, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>>> I'm now working on
>>>
>>> http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2861
>>&
On 14 March 2017 at 14:18, David Malcolm wrote:
> Looking at PR ipa/8, which notes that ipa-devirt.c has two trailing
> spaces in:
>
> if (warning_at (
> DECL_SOURCE_LOCATION(TYPE_NAME (DECL_CONTEXT (vtable->decl))),
> OPT_Wodr,
> "virtual table of type %qD violates "
>
On 17 March 2017 at 12:17, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
> On Friday 17 March 2017 13:32:17 Janne Blomqvist wrote:
>> Not my area of expertise, but it seems the Glorious Future (TM) in
>> this area is something called the "language server protocol", see
>> http://langserver.org/ . Though AFAIK nobody is
On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
> I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
> on a silly warning, that someone should fix all places within the
> tree that triggers that warning. There is ZERO value to this warning,
> but added work for others to clean up that
On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
>> > on a silly warning, that so
On 27 March 2017 at 14:49, Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 02:36:27PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2017 at 14:26, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> > I completely disagree with your viewpoint here. If someone turns
>> > on a silly warning, that so
On 27 March 2017 at 18:59, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 27.03.2017 um 19:41 schrieb Marek Polacek:
>
>> Of course "the person" had bootstrapped and tested all the languages
>> before
>> adding the warning. If only any of you bothered to check the fortran/
>> ChangeLogs:
>
>
> The problem is with lib
On 28 March 2017 at 21:41, David Malcolm wrote:
> [1] did we miss GCC's 30th anniversary?
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History says the first release was 1987-03
> -22. As for myself, Thursday appears to be the 6th anniversary of me
> starting the gcc-python-plugin and hence on poking at GCC's int
I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecating the
libstdc++ extension that allows arithmetic on std::atomic.
Currently we make it behave like arithmetic on void*, which is also a
GNU extension (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Pointer-Arith.html).
We also allow arithmetic on types
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecating the
libstdc++ extension that allows arithmetic on std::atomic.
Currently we make it behave like arithmetic on void*, which is
On 20/04/17 10:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecating the
libstdc++ extension that allows arithmetic on std::atomic.
Currently we make
On 20/04/17 11:21 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:18:09AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecat
On 20/04/17 10:25 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 11:21 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:18:09AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I know it's a bit late, but
On 20/04/17 11:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 10:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I know it's a bit late, but I'd like
On 20/04/17 10:31 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 11:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 10:18 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I know
On 20/04/17 11:43 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I mean, with -pedantic-errors we already error on void * arighmetics
or function pointer arithmetics. If std::atomic would use
the void * arithmetics, it would also reject it. Or does it use integer
On 20/04/17 11:48 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:39 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Or simply deprecate support for it in std::atomic. **If** the
extension for built-in types is useful then I can imagine it might be
useful to have it for std::atomic too, for a subset of the programs
On 20/04/17 11:57 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 11:43 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I mean, with -pedantic-errors we already error on void * arighmetics
or function pointer arithmetics
On 20/04/17 12:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yet another case where warning suppression in system headers hurts the
library's ability to give diagnostics. We can't warn about using
incomplete types in std::unique_ptr b
On 20/04/17 11:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 12:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yet another case where warning suppression in system headers hurts the
library's ability to give diagnostics. We can't warn a
On 20/04/17 12:20 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 11:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 12:07 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:03:38AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Yet another case where warning suppression in system headers hurts the
library&#
Hi David, I'll send you the forms to complete.
On 2 May 2017 at 12:35, David King wrote:
> Hello GCC maintainers –
>
> I am writing to request the legal forms necessary to contribute to the GCC
> code base (assignment for changes and employer disclaimer) . I’ll be working
> with Johnathan Wakel
On 3 May 2017 at 06:23, carl hansen wrote:
> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, 2017-05-02 at 18:17 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> With gcc 6.3.0, we have this in our build recipe:
>>>
>>> %define mpfr_version 2.4.2
>>> %define mpc_version0.8.1
>>> %define gmp_vers
On 3 May 2017 at 16:09, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> That's right. I was asking about the minimum. I didn't know
> about download_prerequisites but that is downloading versions
> significantly about the minimum documented. And they are bug
> fix releases from the current versions. That leads me to believ
On 5 May 2017 at 21:35, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I just submitted two patches against trunk. I'd like to also have them on the
> 7 branch, so when 7.2 comes out we'll have them. These patches only touch the
> RISC-V backend, which I'm a maintainer of. Is there a branch maintainer I'm
> supposed t
On 10 May 2017 at 10:17, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Maybe "constexpr" would be a better name, as it mirrors the C++11 keyword.
> When I first read about C++ getting constexpr, my first thought was, "Yeah,
> as if they needed yet another way to do metaprogramming!" :) However, I
Because writing functi
On 11 May 2017 at 10:13, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the build system I am working on we are looking at always performing
> the preprocessing and then C/C++ compilation as two separate gcc/g++
> invocations. The main reason is support for distributed compilation but
> see here[1] for other
On 10 May 2017 at 23:14, Daniel Santos wrote:
> Well my primary goal is programming with values that are constant in the
> compiler. There is no language in any C specification (that I'm aware of)
> for a "compile-time constant", but the concept is very important. So just
> because some expressio
On 12 May 2017 at 14:03, joris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also intend
> to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or for use in
> place of the corresponding tools of your OS), unpack the binutils
> distribution either in the
On 12 May 2017 at 15:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 14:03, joris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The installing GCC guide contains a paragraph that says 'If you also intend
>> to build binutils (either to upgrade an existing installation or for use in
>&g
On 13 May 2017 at 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> I guess neither redhat
>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
>> login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu
On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 and
> later.
Ah I missed that in the earlier discussion.
The change I care about in 1.5.3 is
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=dejagnu.git;a=commit;h=5256bd823
On 17 May 2017 at 11:23, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Has anyone seen this behavior? Is it my test box? Are there known problems
> with parallel checks?
Smells like https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77684
On 7 June 2017 at 08:38, 林作健 wrote:
> I have found the cause of this bug.
> In 5.3, the function strip_typedefs only use
> result = cp_build_type_attribute_variant (result, TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t));
> but in 6.3 remove_attributes prediction get invovled:
> if (TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t))
> {
> if
On 12 June 2017 at 19:37, info rmer wrote:
> A lot of Linux distributions have gcc 6.3.1 available, or even preinstalled.
> However, I am not able to find any info about 6.3.1 at the official GCC pages
> at gnu org.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#num_scheme
On 13 June 2017 at 07:01, info rmer wrote:
> 13.06.2017, 01:39, "Jonathan Wakely" :
>> On 12 June 2017 at 19:37, info rmer wrote:
>>> A lot of Linux distributions have gcc 6.3.1 available, or even
>>> preinstalled.
>>> However, I am not able to
On 15 June 2017 at 12:19, Yuri Gribov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It seems that info at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F is
> out-dated: Laurent's mail is not responsive and one's supposed to use
> application form at https://cfarm.tetaneutral.net/users/new/ (which
> provides
On 21 June 2017 at 06:17, R0b0t1 wrote:
> P.S. David, not that I mind everyone knowing of my interest, but I
> didn't reply publicly. This list seems to expect people to not want to
> reply to the list by default, as hitting "reply" stuffs the responder
> into the TO field and the message doesn't g
On 30 June 2017 at 00:18, Marek wrote:
> compiling gcc as a part of toolchain (linux from scratch) gives me the
> following error when compiling as user
> but compiles fine when compiling as root:
>
> --prefix=/tools \
> --target=x86_64-lfs-linux-gnu \
> --with-sysroot=/media/usbdisk \
> --with-gli
On 5 July 2017 at 10:13, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 02:02 +0200, Geza Herman wrote:
>>
>> Here's what happens: in callInitA(), an Object put onto the stack (which
>> has a const member variable, initialized to 0). Then somefunction called
>> (which is intentionally not defined
On 11 July 2017 at 17:51, Jonny Grant wrote:
> Hello
> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html
>
> snprintf (d, sizeof d, "%#02x", x & 0xff);
>
>^^
> Should be: sizeof(d) ?
"The sizeof operator yields the size (in bytes) of its operand, which
may be an expression or the parenthes
501 - 600 of 2286 matches
Mail list logo
