On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:32:06PM +0200, Marco Gubernati wrote:
> Well, my program works correctly if compiled, for example, with
> gcc-3.3.5 (on SuSe and Debian) or gcc-3.4.3 (on Ubuntu). If compiled
> with gcc-4.1.0
> (on the latest SuSe 10.1 release) (exactly the same code) the program
> crashe
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 03:24:08PM -0500, Lacefield, Greg (CNS COE) wrote:
> However, I need to confirm, in the case of
> an FAA audit, that GCC 3.3.1 implements dynamic binding in this fashion.
> Can anyone on the steering committee "officially" confirm that GCC uses
> static v-tables as described
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:49:57PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:41:59PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > More important (and getting off the soap-box, or at least changing to a
> > different one): people seem to be saying that Liqin acted wrongly in
> > che
On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:07:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as
> "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for
> GCC, you can do it for a library it uses too.
>
> I would strongly oppose downloading
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:06:42PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> > I can dig out actual real live numbers, if you're curious. For
> example, when calling comptypes, the no answers are (were) 34x more
> likely than yes answers. If you cannot return false immediately when
> point_to_type1 != poin
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:54:23PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> Once not equal addresses might mean equal types, you have to do a
> structure walk to compare types, and you're right back were we
> started.
Not quite. A structure walk is required to be certain of equality,
but if inequality is t
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 04:18:25PM -0800, Howard Chu wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> >If you compile with -O3 -combine *.c -o alias it will break.
>
> Hm, actually it still prints the correct result for me. What platform
> are you using where it actually makes a difference?
Rather, he is sayi
Paul Brook wrote:
> >For other optimisations I'm not convinced there's an easy win compared
> >with make -j. You have to make sure those passes don't have any global
> >state, and as other people have pointed out garbage collection gets messy.
> >The compile server project did something similar
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 06:47:08PM +0200, Dorit Nuzman wrote:
> > I see this on linux but not on cygwin:
> > Bootstrap comparison failure! ...
>
> I also see this bootstrap failure on i386-redhat-linux systems -
> on the one system the gcc used to compile stage1 is:
> gcc version 3.2.2 20
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 07:15:19PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> Geert's followup explained this seeming anomaly: he means that the crude
> high-level granularity of "make -j" is enough to keep all cpus busy at 100%,
> and I'm fairly persuaded by the arguments that, at the moment, that's
> sufficient
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:03:20PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> [ first, this is the wrong list to ask such question, gcc-help is the
> right one ]
I disagree in this case.
> On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
> >How are you supposed to find the canonical name of a system (of
> >
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 11:02:51AM -0800, Silvius Rus wrote:
>
> I wrote some code (not released yet) that improves the accuracy of
> -Wstrict-aliasing using tree-ssa-alias information. The primary idea
> was to tell the programmer "go fix the types of variables x and y at
> lines ..." when -f
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 04:35:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> There could be privacy problems too. I don't know the relevant
> legislation, but the [copyright assignment] list includes personal data
> (year of birth, citizenship, employer) and, in Italy, I would have to
> sign a form if I had ac
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 07:57:51PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 17:21 +, Al Viro wrote:
> > There's a bunch of related issues, some kernel, some gcc,
> > thus the Cc from hell on that one.
>
> I don't really see how this is a GCC question, rather I see this
> as a C
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 12:01:45PM -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> Hi Vincent, thanks for making this release. Since this version of mpfr
> fixes important bugs encountered by GCC, I've updated the gcc
> documentation and error messages to refer to version 2.2.1.
>
> I have NOT (yet) updated gcc's
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:09:25PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > IMHO, you should *never* update gcc's configure to force the issue. To do
> > so would be unprecedented.
>
> I'm not in favor of this either, but aren't there precedents with either
> automake, autoconf, or both?
The ordinary us
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 09:32:19PM -0500, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> OTOH, Joe you're arguing we should never require people to upgrade. Well
> I think that's unfair to people who rely on gcc to produce correct code.
So, should we detect old binutils versions and refuse to build as well?
How about o
Hi all,
The report in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00459.html
claims to be from the 4_2_branch at
Mon Dec 11 08:40:27 UTC 2006 (revision 119731)
That's wrong; it's actually from
Sun Dec 10 08:39:43 UTC 2006 (revision 119704)
but the run took more than 24 hours and the cro
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 04:24:04PM -0800, Dawser Stevens wrote:
> The following code can be compiled with every other
> compiler I have tried (including gcc 4.0 apart from
> several commercial ones), but, unfortunately, gcc
> 4.1.2 outputs this:
>
> overload.cpp: In function "int main()":
> overlo
On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 07:48:29PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> This is not an issue since this is actually invalid C++ and has already been
> documented
> on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html:
> # ARM-style name-injection of friend declarations is no longer the default.
> For example:
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:05:44PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Here is a quick list of optimizations that mainline gcc performs which
> rely on the idea that signed overflow is undefined. All the types
> are, of course, signed. I made have made some mistakes. I think this
> gives a good fee
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 10:25:41PM +0100, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> ... It's not about standards. It's about sanity.
So what happens when two different people's concept of "sanity" differs?
That's why we have standards, so both can consult a reference and
wind up with the same concept, even though o
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > But the other way around? Without -fwrapv the compiler can assume more
> > about the program being compiled (namely that signed integer overflows
> > don't occur), and therefore has more freedom for optimizations. All
> > optimizations that are possible
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 04:13:08PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I am. I just now looked and found another example.
> gcc-4.3-20061223/gcc/fold-const.c's neg_double function
> contains this line:
>
> *hv = - h1;
>
> This one is a bit less obvious because it doesn't have a
> "Danger Will Robi
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:44:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Does autoconf enable higher optimization levels for other compilers by
> default?
Yes.
Rather, some other compilers default to optimization on, unless the
user explicitly turns it off with -O0. (Example: icc).
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 09:52:24PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Wait, though: K&Rv2 is post-C89. If memory serves, it was C89
> that established the rule that signed integer overflow has
> undefined behavior whereas unsigned overflow is well-defined.
I don't have the original K&R book so can't tel
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 08:57:12PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > I suppose there is
> >
> > *hv = (HOST_WIDE_INT) -(unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) h1;
> >
> > to make it safe.
>
> Can't that conversion overflow?
Not on a two's complement machine, and I know of no gcc ports
to a non-two's-comp
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 10:24:36AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Then the question is why does C developers act differently than Fortran
> developers when it comes to undefinedness?
In the case of int overflow wrapping, I think it's because the Bell Labs
folks appeared to assume wrapping semantics
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 07:33:06AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > the seemingly prevalent attitude "but it is undefined; but it is not
> > C" is the opinion of the majority of middle-end maintainers.
>
> Does anybody DISAGREE with that "attitude"? It isn't valid C to assume that
> signed overfl
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > let's disable the assumption about signed overflow not wrapping for
> > VRP, but leave it in place for loop analysis.
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 06:09:41PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> As far as I know this will work for all the wrapv-assuming code that
>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:24:35PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 03 January 2007 19:08, Adam Sulmicki wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >
> >> I told you was to use the gcc-help mailing list, which was correct.
> >
> >> So this seems to be a bug in gcc: it should be calli
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 08:11:35PM -0500, drizzle drizzle wrote:
> Hi
> I have tried everything any page might say on this, still
> stuck. Any help would be great
> Hi all
>
> I am trying to install 3.4 on my AMD turion 64 machine with fedora
> core.
You mean 4.3 (or rather a snapshot or
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 07:25:03PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> In case you still get the warning after trying that, I think that one
> can get the same kind of problems when the ABI is incorrect, e.g. a
> 32-bit GMP library in /usr/lib, a 64-bit GMP library in /usr/local/lib
> and a MPFR build
Hi,
RMS has been bugging the Steering Committee about the the bug backlog; he
is worried about its size. In trying to put together some answers for
him, I was struggling with the fact that it is very difficult to tell,
with four open lines of development (4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3), which bugs are
in wh
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
>
> I don't mind closing it, myself. D
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:23:36PM -0500, David Fang wrote:
> User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced
> to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered
> fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are
> not in 4.0 (
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > > because they are ta
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:40:46AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Both AMD and Intel like to have BID as a configure time option
> for DFP. Intel is planning to contribute a complete BID runtime
> library, which can be used by executables generate by gcc.
>
> As the first step, we'd like to contribute a
Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas> The only problem I see is that one can easily lose track of
> Andreas> which patches were already reviewed. Perhaps it would have
> Andreas> been better to send them in smaller batches.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:56:48PM -0700, To
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:48AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
> subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
> more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the
> archive, you should
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:09:16AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The subtlety I'm refering to is not that "void* p = &p" is not well-defined,
> but rather the fact that when we see
>
> T t = some-expression-involving-t;
>
> we would like to warn for cases where there is a high probability
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:09:51PM -0600, ying lcs wrote:
> Can you please tell me can I use gcc 3.4 to compile a binary on a 64
> bits machine? or I need to use gcc 4.1?
Please use gcc-help for questions like this. The gcc list is for
developers and serious testers, not for user support.
Hi,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html says that bugs in WAITING
state for more than three months, waiting for information on how
to reproduce the bug, can be closed, but it is unclear what the
"closed" state should be.
The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
repro
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:41:08PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > Saddest is that is that in a batch of various related bug closings, the
> > > blanket comment "M68k/ColdFire is not a primary platform - CLOSED".
> >
> > That should not happen, they should only get their target milestone
> > bump
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:17:07PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 06:05:49PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> > On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > >Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
> > >the GCC tests on an installed compil
On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 10:24:40AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | Let's wait a bit more for other opinions, say one day or two, then I
> | will start the actual work. As far as I can see, other compilers do
> | not warn in such cases, an
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 08:22:10AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I mean, could not we generate the following for "%":
>
> rem a b :=
> if abs(b) == 1
> return 0
> return a b
On x86 processors that have conditional moves, why not do the equivalent
of
neg_b =
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 12:05:12PM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> By definition, the absolute value of "a % b" is always less than the
> absolute value of b. Consequently, "a % b" is always defined.
Nitpick: for nonzero b.
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:05:20AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> >
> >Hmmm, it says nothing about the remainder. Can some Google guru
> >suggest how to prove or disprove the claim that what we are
> >talking about is wildly known?
> >
>
> The point really is not how widely/
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 01:31:06PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> >Ian Lance Taylor writes:
> > > I suspect that the best fix, in the sense of generating the best
> > > code, would be to do this at the tree level. That will give loop
> > > and VRP optimizations the best chance t
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 10:54:33PM -0300, Laura Tardivo wrote:
>
> Hi, my question is about the meanig of qualifiers in combination with
> typedefs. For example:
Laura,
That is a C language question, and is not gcc-specific. The gcc list is
for the compiler developers to communicate, and even
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 06:55:45PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > | On 2007-01-16 13:41:16 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > | > To be clear, in my opinion, this should always be selected by an
> > | > option, it should never be default be
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 05:48:34PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> From a performance/convenience angle, the best place to handle this is
> either libc or the kernel. Either of these can quite easily fix up
> the operands when a trap happens, with zero performance degradation of
> existing code. I d
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 06:03:08PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >
> > |
> > | From a performance/convenience angle, the best place to handle this is
> > | either libc or the kernel.
> >
> > Hmm, that is predicated on a
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 07:03:43PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's an engineering problem. We have a widget that does the wrong
> thing*. We have several ways to make it do the right thing, only one
> of which has no adverse impact on the existing users of the widget.
> * (in some people's opi
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 07:42:38PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
> > You believe there is one solution, except that it does not work for
> > the supported target.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that.
I suspect that he meant to write "one supported target"
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 04:36:04PM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I just built firefox (CVS) with GCC mainline. The compiler spitted
> avalanches of non-sensical warning about conversions signed ->
> unsigned may alter values, when in fact the compiler knows that
> such things cannot happen.
>
I wrote:
> | Careful. As you suggest, let's restrict ourselves to two's complement
> | platforms. I would want the compiler to warn if the identity holds for an
> | ILP32 machine but not an LP64 machine, even if I'm running on an ILP32.
> | But if the two types are going to be the same size ever
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 06:40:21PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> H .. I wish some of the more important bugs in gcc received
> the attention that this very unimportant issue is receiving :-)
>
> I guess the difference is that lots of people can understand
> this issue.
Yes, this phenomenon has
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 05:36:23PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Morten Welinder wrote:
> >>For sure a/b is undefined
> >
> >In C, it is. In assembler it is perfectly well defined, i.e., it
> >traps. But how is the
> >trap handler supposed to know the source of a given instruction?
> >
> >M.
>
>
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 11:16:06AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The new -Wstrict-overflow
> warning will issue warnings for each case where gcc assumes that
> signed overflow is undefined.
>
> To be clear, this -Wstrict-overflow option generates a lot of false
> positives. That is becau
On Mon, Jan 22, 2007 at 06:48:16PM -0500, Andreas Bogk wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > I just want to report that I have a working patch to generate warnings
> > every time gcc modifies code relying on the fact that signed overflow
> > is undefined, except for cases where signed loop indexes a
On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 07:52:30PM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> * A base class is not initialized in a derived class' copy constructor.
>
> Proposed: move this warning to -Wuninitialized seems the appropriate
> solution. However, I am afraid that this warning will turn out to be
> too noisy
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 12:55:29AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 1/23/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >So, I was doing some archeology on past releases and we seem to be
> >getting into longer release cycles. With 4.2 we have already crossed
> >the 1 year barrier.
>
> Heh.
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 07:51:21AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Your conclusion may well be correct. The question for this group is:
> > what's the best that GCC can do to serve the community/society?
>
> Do all it can to discourage people from writing safety- or
> security-critical code in a
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 02:02:47PM -0500, In Cognito wrote:
> Let me try to clarify.
> GCC is allocated more than 512 bytes,
> >0x080483a7 :sub$0x208,%esp
> 0x208= 520 in this case.
>
> Where are those extra 8 bytes? They're in between what
> gcc is considering the start of buf, &buf[0] a
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 05:42:31PM +0100, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > There were over 250 PRs open against GCC-4.0.4. Almost all of
> > them are "benign" in the sense that we can leave without fixing them
> > in GCC-4.0.4 -- many are already fixed in more recent versions.
> > I'm now givin
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 04:10:18PM -0500, Andrew J. Hutton wrote:
> > We would like to invite everyone to read over the Call for Papers for
> > the 2007 GCC Developers' Summit located at
> > http://www.gccsummit.org/2007/cfp.php and to consider submitting a
> > proposal for this year.
On Thu,
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 04:21:28PM -0800, George R Goffe wrote:
> Howdy,
>
> I've been seeing this error for the past couple of days. Am I doing something
> wrong
> here?
The following message is worrying:
> make[8]: Warning: File `../../../native/jni/classpath/jcl.lo' has
> modification time
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 10:34:06PM +0100, Andreas Bogk wrote:
> But if the gcc user base prefers performance over security, and you are
> willing to go with them, they might get what they deserve.
You continue to confidently assert, without any backup, that loop
unrolling that assumes overflow doe
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 06:57:43PM -0500, Paul Schlie wrote:
> > Robert Dewar wrote:
> >
> > People always say this, but they don't really realize what they are
> > saying. This would mean you could not put variables in registers, and
> > would essentially totally disable optimization.
>
> - can y
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 04:25:54PM -0800, Ray Hurst wrote:
> They told me to go to the compiler writer newsgroup.
"They" told you wrong. You don't need a compiler writer to answer
basic C++ programming questions.
On Sat, Jan 27, 2007 at 02:47:44AM +0100, Andreas Bogk wrote:
> I'm exactly talking about the semantics of "undefined" here. It would
> be immensely reassuring if a compiler would at least interpret this as
> "unspecified, but consistent". Even better would be a defined and
> documented semantics
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 10:42:07PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Snapshot gcc-4.0-20070128 is now available on
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20070128/
> and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
It's probably time to turn off 4.0 snapshots; the last
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 11:02:10PM +, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2007 09:56:55 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >At present, as far as I know, the highest defined optimization level
> >is -O3. -ONUMBER where NUMBER > 3 is equivalent to -O3. There is no
> >particular
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 03:24:56PM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> But then to have Mark *support* rth's change, that really shows the
> total lack of leadership and a common plan in the design of gcc.
There you go again. Mark did not support or oppose rth's change, he just
said that rth probably
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > dec-osf4.0f/4.1.2/install-tools/mkheaders.conf
> > /bin/sh: : cannot execute
> > /bin/sh: /]*/../,, -e ta: not found
> > sed: Function s,[ cannot be parsed.
>
> That should not happen on Solaris if you set CONFIG_SHELL=/bin/ksh as
On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 04:15:05PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >>> dec-osf4.0f/4.1.2/install-tools/mkheaders.conf
> >>> /bin/sh: : cannot execute
> >>> /bin/sh: /]*
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, icrashedtheinternet wrote:
> I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
> conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
> does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
> internationally accepted st
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 08:00:29PM +, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:44:50PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Meanwhile, there's __builtin_trap() already, and Ralf might use that
> > even to remove the asm volatile, and Paweł could use it in a default:
> > label. It's still
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 01:53:44PM -0800, Silvius Rus wrote:
> I am implementing -Wstrict-aliasing by catching simple cases in the
> frontend and more complex ones in the backend. The frontend mechanism
> is tree pattern matching. The backend one uses flow-sensitive points-to
> information.
>
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 04:14:30PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I also think it would be good to have one option affecting it: turn
> __builtin_unreachable() into an abort(), or turn it into a "cannot be
> reached" marker. I think the former should be the default at -O0, the
> latter at -O1 an
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 03:52:54PM -0500, Karnowski, David wrote:
> Are there any gcc-related issues with the upcoming changes to the
> Daylight Savings Time switch in the US starting this year? That is, will
> programs compiled with the gcc (excluding any third-party libraries)
> have any time-rel
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:36:00PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
OK, I untarred it, built, and tested.
I have test results for all languages except Ada, for RHEL 3
(ancient, but with binutils-2.17), on a
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 12:49:56AM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > Tom Tromey writes:
>
> Tom> David probably knows this, but for others, Jakub and Andrew put in a
> Tom> patch for this today. I think it is only on trunk, not any other
> Tom> branches.
>
> Should this be included in G
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:04:05PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 01:00:41PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > "make bootstrap" used to compare stage2 and stage3 after gcc was
> > bootstrapped. "make bootstrap" would abort if comparison was failed.
> > Now, compare stage2 and stage3 is n
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:16:43PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
> > > actually use throw() everywhere, or
Joe Buck wrote:
> > Will 4.1.2 be worse than 4.1.1 for code that has these kinds of failings?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:53:10PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Yes
> > If so, then it might be better to push the fix that allows overrides that
> > throw back to 4.2, and
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 11:41:48PM +0100, J.C. noticed that there
is a tarball with an interesting name on gcc.gnu.org.
The actual announcement is always delayed by 24 hours or so to allow time
for all of the mirrors around the world to pick it up.
This should not be a surprise, given that there
On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 12:27:42AM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>... *All* releases seem to have the
> predictions that they are useless, should be skipped because the next
> release will be so much better in way X or Y, etc.; I think the question
> of how widely used a release series turned o
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 11:09:29AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> Yes, that is the current state of 4.1 and 4.2 branches (as of
> yesterday). I don't think we will see a change with the reverted
> alaising patches for itanium because conservative aliasing most probably
> will be compensate
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >A week is too short of time to ping a patch.
> >
>
> Ups! I actually believed that a week was the recommended time to ping
> a patch. What is it then?
Sometimes the
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:45:21AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 02/03/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 01:31:12AM +, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 02/03/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 11:10:22AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which
> > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in
> > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was
> > there at the time).
>
On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> bug list) is actually the head of gcc/reload.c (full text below).
That is really obnoxious and should be removed.
On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 12:50:47PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 3/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:45:13AM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> >> One of the bugzilla quips (the headlines appearing at random for each
> >> bug
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:13:08AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> | Should we mention Waddress in the GCC 4.2 release notes?
>
> Proper documentation is sufficient I believe.
Or the release notes could just say something like:
* New warning
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 08:36:25AM -0500, Vladimir N. Makarov wrote:
> o Muchnik book is a fat one. Muchnick's book is rather encyclopedia
> of optimizations and can be considered as collection of articles with
> many details (sometimes too many). But some themes (like RA and
> scheduling) are d
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:31:34AM -0600, Eric Weddington wrote:
> At the risk of extending this out further, can someone explain to me why
> using TABs is preferrable, as they are interpreted, while spaces are
> unambiguous?
If anyone wants to explain this to Eric, please do so off-list.
Let's n
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:36:24AM +0200, Sunzir Deepur wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> any idea where I can find a (free) graphical VCG viewer suitable
> for gcc's vcg outputs ?
>
> seems like the old 1995 package is not applicable on newest linux systems
> (am working on fedora).
See http://www.grap
1 - 100 of 980 matches
Mail list logo
