-parallel-gcc goal would print the command, but
check-parallel-gcc-1 or check-parallel-gcc-112 would not).
So, like this?
commit c750897381a3f936e27cabd825cfa85ce936a6a9
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Mon Sep 22 11:44:00 2014 -0400
gcc/
* Makefile.in (check-parallel-%): Add @.
libstdc
On 10/09/2014 08:45 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
What happened to the plans to stabilize the libstdc++ c++11 ABI? Is this still
a target for GCC 5?
Yes.
Jason
On 10/12/2014 10:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# cat test.cc
const char n() { return 1; }
const char c = n();
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O0 -c -o test.o test.cc
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O2 -c -o test.o test.cc
What should I tell a user who wants to create an account?
Jason
On 11/03/2014 10:24 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
I propose enabling -fextended-identifiers by default for the appropriate
standard versions (i.e. all C++ versions, C99 and above for C - so enabled
by default for C now the default C version is gnu11). Any comments or
objections?
Yes, I've been think
On 11/04/2014 09:11 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
I have no idea how I can keep the testcase working - to me it
seems it works by accident. So I am inclined to XFAIL it
(it's an accept-invalid then).
OK.
Jason
On 11/03/2014 04:18 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What larger merges are still planned for GCC 5?
I'm planning to merge the concepts branch.
Jason
On 11/18/2014 09:26 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I was poking around attribs.c while trial running my tree-type-safety
stuff, and it triggered something in decl_attributes() that seems fishy
to me. It looks like it was part of the fix for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35315
decl_att
On 11/18/2014 02:32 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
So it effectively does nothing. Unless Jason can think of a good
reason for it, we probably ought to turf it. Its effectively a NOP.
Yeah, go ahead.
Jason
On 02/16/2015 07:27 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Jason, I wonder if there is more informative way to print destructor during LTO
than as __comp_dtor?
You could print the mangled name, and possibly run it through
__cxa_demangle if it starts with _Z.
Laos for named types,
perhaps printing just typ
If you move the call to rest_of_decl_compilation we could go through and
prune the debug info for unused decls at dwarf2out_finish time, the way
we do with unused types.
Jason
The wiki page https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/UnalignedPolicy says,
---
typedef char B3[3];
_Atomic B3 obj2;
An object will be promoted up to the next lock-free size in order to
enable lock free operations, as long as it isn't already a documented
lock free size. So obj2 will be prom
I think it's time to switch to C++11 as the default C++ dialect for GCC
6. Any thoughts?
Jason
On 05/14/2015 10:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Is it expected & safe for dwarf2out to process unfinished types?
Yes, they are treated as an incomplete forward declaration.
It seems to me that we may wan to delay rest_of_type_compilation for time the
contexts are
finished, to..
I wouldn't compl
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/17/2018 06:00 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> When we try to compile the below case from trunk gcc we get the below
>> warning (-Wconversion) i.e
>>
>> void start(void) {
>> char n = 1;
>> char n1 = 0x01;
>> n &= ~n1;
>
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 1:38 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 09/20/2018 08:08 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>
>> On 2018-09-17 10:03:48 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 09/17/2018 06:00 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote:
Hi All,
When we try to compile the below case from trunk gcc we get
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Tim van Deurzen wrote:
> I must confess that in the last months I've not been able to find much time
> (I do this in my spare time) to work on this. Part of the problem is also
> that my new employer hasn't yet provided a written copyright waiver for the
> FSF, thou
On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 11:00 AM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:04 PM, Tim van Deurzen wrote:
> > I must confess that in the last months I've not been able to find much time
> > (I do this in my spare time) to work on this. Part of the problem is also
&
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 11:36 PM Tim van Deurzen wrote:
> I've received a lot of good advice from Nathan, but haven't had an
> opportunity to apply it yet. I'm happy, however, to show / commit what I
> have so far (which covers the parsing of the operator). I've been
> working from the git reposito
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 6:06 AM Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> I have received the following idea for a Google Summer of Code project,
> see the quotation from Paul McKenney below (I do not know myself where
> exactly it is from). I consider memory consistency models a very tough
> topic and so am doubl
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:50 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 2/8/19 3:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Status
> > ==
> >
> > GCC 7.3 has been released on January 25th, so it is about time to do
> > GCC 8.3 release now. Unfortunately we have a recent P1 C++ regression
> > - PR88995. Nathan (or
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:23 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 6/27/19 2:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 13:30, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/21/19 4:28 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:13 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
> > > ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On T
On 7/9/19 1:48 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 7/9/19 9:00 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 7/9/19 1:41 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 7/9/19 6:39 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 2:04 PM Martin Liška wrote:
Same happens also for GCC7. It does 17 iteration (#define
MAX_ITERATIONS
On 7/11/19 3:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:48:52AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
@@ -501,6 +501,8 @@ c_common_handle_option (size_t scode, const char *arg,
HOST_WIDE_INT value,
flag_use_repository = value;
On 7/12/19 8:44 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 7/11/19 7:25 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 7/11/19 3:02 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 08:48:52AM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
--- a/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
+++ b/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
@@ -501,6 +501,8 @@ c_common_handle_option (size_t
The clobber means that 'a' no longer has a value, presumably because it has
gone out of scope.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 2:07 PM navya deepika Garakapati <
navyadeepika.garakap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> We are investigating the optimization issue with GCC trunk code and we have
> the be
.sh should probably modified not to release the "stale" locks
> based
> on a fixed timeout value. How?
>
> While the "no-output" problem can be fixed in the lock script as well
> (attached), this doesn't apply to third party apps. Having unbuffered output
> and/or
At Cauldron this weekend Joel offered to adjust his git hooks
(https://github.com/brobecke/git-hooks), which are already used by gdb
and glibc, to meet GCC's needs. Separately, Joseph volunteered to
deal with converting the gcc-www repository to git and dealing with
those hooks.
I expect that Joe
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 2:21 PM Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 9/19/19 12:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:09 PM Bernd Edlinger
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm currently trying to add -Wshadow=local to the gcc build rules.
> >> I started with -Wshadow, but gave up that
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 1:10 PM Jeff Law wrote:
> On 9/12/19 8:48 AM, Jianbin Fang wrote:
> > Hello Guys,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am working on OpenCL for a couple of years, and would like to ask,
> > as for GCC, why not taking OpenCL C as a built-in language in its
> > front-end?
> There's no inherent r
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:32 AM Nicholas Krause wrote:
> I was wondering if its possible to use the C11 atomics library for
> multithreading
>
> GCC. Not sure if its a good idea due to concerns about older plaforms
> not having a C11 supported libraries or compiler.
I've been wondering if it's ti
Have you had a chance to try this?
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 2:39 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> How does this do for you?
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:15 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > I'm running into some issues building LTO+profiled enabled configurations
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 6:16 PM Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 21:46, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > Would anyone like to make any comments on this conversion from CVS to git?
> >
> > It looks pretty good. I note that the author map ju
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:08 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 05:10 Nicholas Krause, wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I asked about moving to C/C++ 11 as it would make it easier to
> > >
> > > allow multithreading
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:07 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 17:42, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 04:19:25PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > I've already proposed a more specific format for libstdc++:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jeff Chapman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 8:03 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > Why doesn't the std specify the satisfaction nesting limit in the same
> > way as template instantiation? (at least that's what I infer from your
> > question).
>
> I'm not sure why it'
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 07:21:22PM +, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > On 18/11/2019 18:53, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > PR target/92140: clang vs gcc optimizing with adc/sbb
> > > PR fortran/91926:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 4:38 PM Richard Earnshaw (lists) <
richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 18/11/2019 20:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:51 PM Segher Boessenkool <
> > seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:56:50AM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Yep. I don't think we need to worry about getting optimal one-line
> > summaries for ancient commits; something r
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 6:27 AM Segher Boessenkool <
seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> It would be good if whatever convention we do for commit messages and
> their first line would be machine parseable as well.
>
The first line should be useful to humans, machines can parse the whole
message.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 11:51 AM 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 12/7/19 3:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 06:43:35PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Hi all,
Right now the trunk does not compile with GCC 4.4.7 (the GCC that
comes with CentOS 6; yes I know old) after revision 277200 (October
19).
AFAIK we haven't switched to requiring C
>From the earlier email thread, I think the plan is to switch to C++11 for
GCC 11.
Jason
On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 1:43 PM Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
>
> On 12/9/19 1:31 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-12-09 at 18:09 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 12/9/19 5:03 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:39 PM Joseph Myers
wrote:
> Points for consideration:
>
> 1. Do we want some kind of rearrangement of refs as in the 1b
> repository or not?
>
Maybe? How much space does that save in a clone? How much work does a
partial clone add on the server, since the server needs
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:17 PM Joseph Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:39 PM Joseph Myers
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Points for consideration:
> > >
> > > 1. Do we want some kind of rearran
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> As I said earlier, one thing I find useful in svn compared to git are
> the monotonically increasing revision numbers that we at Red Hat e.g. use
> in our gcc bisect seed but I find it useful even in bugzilla everyday use.
>
> With
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 6:28 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 10:47:47PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Ah, you suggested g: rather than just g.
> > We could then support
> > rN (1-6 decimal digits) - the svn revs, either for old repo, or
> transformed
> > g:X (X is any
I'm also happy to help.
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:40 AM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> 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 conta
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 10:29 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 1/13/20 6:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I imagine a lot of people are going to feel lost in the first few
> > weeks of using Git.
>
> thanks. I have a question, but first some info that may well be useful
> to others.
>
> Today I le
On 1/13/20 6:00 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
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 to sw
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 at 08:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>
> The docum
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 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, J
OK.
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> On 26/04/2017 12:32, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in 2013 (2013-09-16) Adam added two slightly obscure functions and I can't
>> find much around in terms of rationale, etc:
>>
>> /* Returns true iff TYPE is a TEMPLA
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 12:55 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>> On 2017.05.18 at 12:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2017 11:59 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 05/18/2017 11:41 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> I just tried to push a change and
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 05/19/2017 03:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 05/18/2017 12:55 PM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017.05
It seems that when DJ converted TARGET_PROMOTE_PROTOTYPES to a hook,
he added a parameter type that was never documented; the name and its
initial usage indicate that it was intended to get the type of a
function. Later Kazu converted remaining uses of the macro to use the
hook, but those calls pa
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 11:47:41AM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>> In my original proposal, I said this:
>>
>> > It includes a bunch of macro->hook conversions, mostly because the
>> > hooks need an additional parameter (the function) to detec
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Jason Merrill writes:
>> I'm inclined to change the C++ FE to pass NULL_TREE instead until such
>> time as someone cares.
>
> The sh backend will at least not choke on that ;-)
Thus.
commit 301b543f38b687fe5d
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (I tried to send an earlier version of this a few days ago. It's not
> in your list archives; an MTA somewhere might have had a bad moment.)
>
> I have good news and better news.
>
> The good news is both reposurgeon bugs known to be block
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Jason Merrill :
>> I've pushed to the thyrsus gcc-conversion repository the rest of my
>> work from last year, including a few changes to the attribution map
>> and a post-processing script.
>
> Got it.
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> The 'changelogs' command of reposugeon attempts to fill in author
> attributions (author and authorship date) by mining Changelogs. It
> makes use of the fact that changesets often contain a change band for
> a Changelog and that change ba
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Tim van Deurzen wrote:
> I've been spending some time the past few weeks implementing p0515r2,
> i.e. the proposal for consistent comparisons for C++ (aka the spaceship
> operator).
Great!
> I've received some very valuable help on the IRC channel, but
> I'm still
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 January 2018 at 22:07, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Tim van Deurzen wrote:
>>> I've been spending some time the past few weeks implementing p0515r2,
>>> i.e. the proposal
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 3:26 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 12:18 PM, Roman Popov wrote:
>> Is there any progress on this problem?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with G++ , but I have little experience with LLVM. I can
>> try make LLVM emitting mangled names to DW_AT_name, instead of d
On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
> And even worse, the obvious workaround does not work:
>
> static inline __attribute__((always_inline))
> void foo(void) {}
>
> // static inline __attribute__((always_inline, alias("foo")))
> // void bar(void);
>
> static inline
On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> Jason,
>
> The manual mentions some C++-only options in the language
> independent section 3.8 Options to Request or Suppress
> Warnings and others in 3.5 Options Controlling C++ Dialect.
>
> For example, -Wcatch-value, -Wconditionally-supporte
On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/03/2018 08:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> The manual mentions some C++-only options in the language
>>>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 07:05 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/03/2018 08:08 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
>> extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want
>> to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bit
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the
>>> extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might wa
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018 at 01:30, Soul Studios wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It's never called.
>> >
>> > I added a call to abort() to that function, and the tests all pass. So
>> > the function is never used, so GCC never compiles it and doesn't
>> > no
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> On 07/05/2018 05:14 PM, Soul Studios wrote:
>>>
>>> Simply because a struct has a constructor does not mean it isn't a
>>> viable target/source for use with memcpy/memmove/memset.
>>
>>
>> As the docume
Thanks for the update.
On Mon, Jul 9, 2018, 10:28 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> There is good news bad news on the GCC repository conversion.
>
> The good news is that I have solved the only known remaining technical
> problem in reposurgeon blocking the conversion. I've fixed the bug
> that prev
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions.
I'm curious, why?
Jason
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
>>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functi
On 02/03/2011 08:03 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
- I wanted to merge branch 'b2' into branch 'b1'
$ git checkout b1
$ git svn rebase
$ git merge b2
< ... fix whatever needs fixing in the merge ... >
$ git rebase -i @{u}
I'm surprised at the error that you saw, but I'm not surprised that you
had t
On 02/03/2011 02:06 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Thanks. I *think* --squash did the trick. I'm hesitant to commit it
now, though. How can I tell what commit log will be used by 'git svn
dcommit'? This is the state of my merged branch. I think this means
I'm OK to commit this with dcommit, right?
This testcase is ill-formed (and breaks in C++0x mode), because it
declares puts to have the wrong return type. I note that changing it to
have the right return type causes it to no longer be inlined. What do
you suggest we do about this?
Jason
On 03/11/2011 06:32 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
Some of Linux distributions use Redhat branches as base for their builds
of GCC.
It would be nice to have Redhat branches in git mirror. At least for gcc
4.3 - 4.6.
They are in the mirror, just not in the set of branches you get when
cloning.
On 03/18/2011 08:14 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 18:53, Levon Haykazyan wrote:
Dear gcc contributors,
My name is Levon Haykazyan, I am a PhD student at Yerevan
State University (Armenia) studying theoretical computer
science. I am considering applying to Summer of Code for
On 03/25/2011 11:13 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
Let's say that I want to imitate 'exactly' the behavior of the
range-for, but with a plain old for (there are plenty of reasons for
that):
Note that there was already a special case for arrays.
Jason
On 03/25/2011 06:13 AM, Rodrigo Rivas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Yep. Here is the wording that we approved today:
[snip]
Nice. Thank you.
Could you update your patch to match the final wording?
Thanks,
Jason
On 03/28/2011 08:13 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Please CC me on C++ questions, as I don't keep up with the mailing list
very well.
I would like to check that template literal operators have the specific
non-type parameter pack:
template
Foo operator"" sluggo();
I looked through the internals
On 04/20/2011 11:38 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I don't know. I thought pushdecl_with_scope would be it. Jason, is
there any other bookkeeping routine we would need to be calling?
Maybe we need to set some global that points to the current namespace
before calling pushdecl_with_scope()? There is
On 06/09/2011 03:48 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Someone else asked for this the other day on gcc-help
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2011-06/msg00193.html) so I thought
I'd take a look at implementing it. It turns out that or class
templates all that's needed is something like:
verbatim ("insta
On 06/10/2011 10:20 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
no, a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is generally not an lvalue (fold for example
would turn the above to (volatile int) a[1]).
The gimplifier seems to consider it an lvalue: gimplify_expr uses
gimplify_compound_lval for it, and gimplify_addr_expr handles tak
On 06/12/2011 06:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
The please provide a specification on what a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR does
to type-based alias analysis.
If the alias set of the VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR type the same as the set for
the operand, ignore it; if it's a subset, handle it like a
COMPONENT_REF; ot
On 06/13/2011 06:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
But I suppose you want the array-ref be folded to a constant eventually?
Right.
I'm not going to keep arguing about VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, but that brings
me back to my original question: is it OK to add a permissive mode to
the function, or should
On 06/17/2011 10:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 14:47, Diego Novillo wrote:
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa)
return;
to
if (flag_syntax_only || flag_wpa || errorcount> 0)
return;
To clarify. It would be 'seen_error ()' instead of 'errorcount> 0',
but the id
Well, the basic issue is that the "linkage name" is produced by
libiberty/cp-demangle.c and the DW_AT_name is produced by
gcc/cp/error.c, and they don't always agree on the same pretty-printed
representation of a C++ expression.
For this case,
The function linkage name has prefix: K<&(S::m(i
On 06/23/2011 06:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Well, so what? This test case does not represent actual or even likely
user code. I don't think we need to contort ourselves to generate all
possible errors for erroneous input. As many errors as reasonable, yes.
All possible errors, no.
I agree
On 07/06/2011 12:34 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Is there a canonical way that we should use to rebuild the
elements from scope_chain->bindings? Could we not simply add
them to the current translation unit's scope_chain->bindings
as-is, instead of doing all these pushdecl calls?
That would probabl
On 08/15/2011 07:25 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
I checked this into cilkplus branch. Jason, can you also mirror
branches/cilkplus in GCC git mirror?
Done.
Jason
On 10/11/2011 06:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*.
Yes. Once with -std=c++0x, once without.
Jason
On 10/11/2011 10:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*.
Yes. Once with -std=c++0
On 10/18/2011 09:57 AM, Yvan ROUX wrote:
int main() {
const int Ci = 0;
const int&rCi = Ci;
if (!(&Ci ==&rCi)) return 1;
return 0;
}
The program has the expected behaviour if you use a 4.5 gcc or the trunk, but
if you compile it with a 4.6 one (even with the b
On 10/30/2011 03:25 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
-Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving,
- GCC's support for C++0x isexperimental. No attempt will be
- made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of
- C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard
I've checked this in with some tweaks.
Jason
On 11/08/2011 03:08 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I saw it on a native build, possibly netbsd, but I ignored it as I was
in the middle of something. Will keep an eye out for it again.
I see it occasionally too, but haven't been able to reproduce it when
calling the compiler directly. Very odd.
101 - 200 of 528 matches
Mail list logo
