Hi.
from the ld.info manual:
""" [...] the ability to bind a symbol to a version node in the source
file where the symbol is defined instead of in the versioning script.
This was done mainly to reduce the burden on the library maintainer.
You can do this by putting something like:
__as
Hi,
Compiling git 1.6.4.1 with the gcc trunk
Using built-in specs.
Target: x86_64-suse-linux Configured with: ../configure
--prefix=/usr --infodir=/usr/share/info
--mandir=/usr/share/man --libdir=/usr/lib64
--libexecdir=/usr/lib64
--enable-languages=c,c+
On Tuesday 2008-12-16 17:05, Michel Van den Bergh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following program segfaults when compiled with gcc
> but runs fine when compiled with g++ or icc (the intel C compiler)
>
> #include
> struct Hello {
> char world[20];
> };
> struct Hello s(){
> struct Hello r;
>
On Tuesday 2008-12-16 18:01, Sebastian Redl wrote:
> Michel Van den Bergh wrote:
>> That's strange. When I try to compile this with gcc 4.3.2 on Ubuntu 8.10
>> (Intel core2 duo)
>> I get
>>
>> stest.c: In function ‘main’:
>> stest.c:13: warning: format ‘%s’ expects type ‘char *’, but argument 2 ha
On Tuesday 2008-12-16 18:43, Michel Van den Bergh wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
>>
>> > C++98 is not C99 :) there is no rvalue to lvalue conversion for rvalue
>> > arrays in C++98. Also this code is still undefined C99 but will most
>> > likely become valid C1x.
>>
Hi,
I have here an (attached) testcase which unexpectedly turns off
warnings. Compiling it using `gcc test.c -c -Wall` (or test.i) gives:
test.c: In function ‘pam_sm_authenticate’:
test.c:6: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘undef’
What I would have expected:
test.c: In function ‘pam
On Thursday 2009-01-01 03:05, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I have here an (attached) testcase which unexpectedly turns off
>> warnings. Compiling it using `gcc test.c -c -Wall` (or test.i)
Hi,
I noticed that __alignof__(uint64_t) will return 8, while
__alignof__(struct { uint64_t x; }) will give only 4. This
run on a typical 32-bit x86 CPU (GCC config below).
What I am wondering about is why GCC was coded to give different
alignments here. If aligning a single uint64_t to a bounda
9 Jun 2009 14:34:10
From: Patrick McHardy
To: Jan Engelhardt
Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List ,
Philip Craig
Subject: Re: conntrack untracked match is broken (kernel patch)
>On Monday 2009-06-22 08:31, Philip Craig wrote:
>>The problem is that state_mask in 'struct xt_conntr
On Monday 2009-06-29 16:09, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>2009/6/29 Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>> Hi gcc list,
>>>
>>>
>>> I am forwarding below's bugreport here(*), to implicitly make aware
&
10 matches
Mail list logo
