On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 02:15:44PM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>
> So, is it just me or does execute/930529-1.c invoke undefined or
> implementation defined behavior due to its reliance upon overflow
> behavior for signed types?
>
> In particular look at the control for the second loop:
>
> i
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:15:33PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:57:10PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | > | http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-08/msg01463.html
> | >
> | > That simply means GCC got it wrong.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:38:29PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> >
> > Is this valid C or C++? I am getting a syntax error when
> > compiled as C++ but not C.
> >
> > int f()
> > {
> > int x, y, ;
> > }
>
> I am getting a syntax error with the C front-end but not with the
> C++ front-end.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:54:48PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:01:56PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > We traditionally do not warn about not using the value returned by a
> > function. And I don't see why adding a cast should change that.
> > Intuitively, a cas
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:48:57PM -0500, Douglas B. Jones wrote:
> I am on:
>
> SunOS hostname 5.9 Generic_118558-14 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-1500.
> I try to do a bootstrap with the following using gnu make 3.80:
>
> mkdir objectdir;cd objectdir
> CC="cc -xildoff -xarch=v9"
> export CC
Why a
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:17:11PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > mkdir objectdir;cd objectdir
> > > CC="cc -xildoff -xarch=v9"
> > > export CC
> >
> > Why are you choosing those flags?
>
> Probably because they are advertised on:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#sparc64-x-solaris2
>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:35:28PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Also, sparc-sun-solaris2.9 doesn't mean "32-bit compiler", it means
> > "build both compilers, defaulting to 32 bits".
>
> No, the compiler is purely 32-bit, only the libraries are of both flavors.
We are using the term in a diffe
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >We've gotten to deal with SC people and they do also believe it is a
> >miserable subset of C.
Pun, hmm? (MISRAble).
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 05:26:58PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Well it is as far as I know, the only recognized subset of C for
> this purpose, and the
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:34:40PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The tarballs for GCC-3.4.5 pre-release are available at
>
>ftp://gcc.gnu.org:/pub/gcc/prerelease-3.4.5-20051121/
>
> Please download and test them.
Looks good on RHEL 3 (i686-pc-linux-gnu). Test results are at
http://gcc
> > > Diego Novillo writes:
> Over the last couple of years, there have been some half hearted attempts
> at suggesting C++ as a new implementation language for GCC. I would
> personally love to see us move to C++, but so far that has not happened.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 06:42:11PM -0
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:10:55PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> when gcc emits vague linkage data for C++ like vtables it makes them all
> weak. Is there some reason why this needs to be done?
In the case of vtables, they are only weak if all the virtual functions
are defined as inline. Otherwis
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:53:31AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >Huh? they are not carefully written at all. This is why I said what
> >is GNU C? Again the language is not written out so it means anything.
>
> So then clearly, since it means anyt
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:20:21PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I'm running the pre-releasing script, so a new prerelease tarball will be
> | available today.
>
> The tarballs are available for download and testing here:
>
>ftp://gcc.gn
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 04:38:58PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Clearly, performance testing is harder than correctness testing;
> correctness is binary, while performance is a continuum. Machine load
> affects performance numbers. It's reasonable to strive for no
> correctness regressions, but
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:05:34PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Back in 1999, Torbjorn Granlund posted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-07n/msg00553.html
>
> That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
> fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Josep
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:23:27PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > Well, the problem is that you're raising a legal technicality, and legal
> > technicalities are up to the FSF. Maybe they'll have no problem,
> > especially if Swox AB bas
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 08:20:31PM -0800, Jim Wilson wrote:
> There isn't enough ia64 maintainer bandwidth to provide detailed
> comments on testsuite results on old machines with old tools versions.
Sorry I don't have anything newer. I think the results are about as good
as what I saw before (
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:09:54PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I was happy to see some recovery in the c++ code generation with
> gcc 4.1. Now xplor-nih only exhibits a 7% speed loss using g++-4.1
> compared to g++-3.3. I assume this is due to the total rewrite of
> the optimizers in gcc > 4.0
On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 03:27:56PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Shouldn't the compiler behave in the following way, concerning the signedness
> of pointer arguments?
>
> void f (long *l, signed long *sl, unsigned long *ul);
"long" and "signed long" are the same type. You are confused abou
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:43:31PM +0200, Michael Veksler wrote:
> Quoting Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On 12/7/05, Morten Welinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > He is kind of right, though. Outside struct (or perhaps union),
> > > zero-sized arrays
> > > make little sense and c
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 10:33:46AM -0800, Chris Miller wrote:
> I noticed on your web page that the GCC 3.4.5 manuals are available.
>
> Is there any way to get comparable download possibilities for the GCC
> 3.4.3 manuals?
The only differences between 3.4.3 and 3.4.5 are bug fixes, both in
the
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 03:31:34PM +0100, Krüpl Zsolt wrote:
> >http://www.microchip.com --> Development Tools --> MPLAB® C30 Compiler
> >
> >It's is a "60 day demo/upgrade" versions GCC, and has no source-code, I
> >wrote a email for Microchip, but they dont give me the source.
>
> The source co
On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 01:46:21PM -0500, David Taylor wrote:
> For a variety of reasons, we would like to be able to specify
> individual compilation switches *within* individual files.
You don't need a gcc modification to do that; you can arrange to get
the compiler flags from a comment in the f
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:13:06PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I hate to bring this up, because it's a "half-troll", but the halting
> problem is *not* undecidable on the machines we use everyday, because they
> have finite memory.
Fine. Now you just have to come up with a solution before the
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 11:13:59AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thursday 12 January 2006 11:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Yes, there is one more instruction to set the variable to 0...
> >
> Oh, please... Fine. You win. I don't care enough.
Use "unsigned".
On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 01:58:14AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Saturday 14 January 2006 01:42, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > Could someone check the bugs that depend on #21824? They have been
> > pending for several months now with no activity, and it is kinda bad
> > karma not having GCC wor
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:28:01PM +0100, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
> On 2006-01-16, at 19:18, DJ Delorie wrote:
> >
> >A cross compiler and a native compiler targeting the same CPU chip,
> >that's a different story.
>
> No it isn't. The results should still be the same.
For a native compiler, the
I wrote:
> For a native compiler, the bootstrap process guarantees (and even
> partially tests) that, regardless of the original compiler, the object
> code of generated compiler itself is byte-for-byte identical regardless of
> which compiler we started with. Since the compiler itself is identica
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 07:22:28PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> I'm trying to bootstrap various GCC branches with --disable-nls on a
> system where the admin installed GNU libiconv in the default directory
> for GNU software, namely /usr/local.
I had a similar issue a while back:
http://gcc.gnu
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:44:37AM -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 08:36:13AM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> | > MRS and Eric Botcazou objected strongly against not being able to
> | > build a 1-stage GCC with --d
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 01:10:19AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >Someone's informed Richard Stallman that this (annoying) warning
> >will not be
> >enabled by default in GCC 4.1.
>
> >But, it currently seems to be. Should it be turned off be
You can already do this today. Run the output of the compiler through 'tac'.
No need for a new feature.
https://linux.die.net/man/1/tac
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of nicolas
bouillot
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:09 PM
(delurking)
Ian Grant writes:
> In case it isn't obvious, what I am interested in is how easily we can know
> the problem of infeasibly large binaries isn't an instance of this one:
>
> http://livelogic.blogspot.com/2014/08/beware-insiduous-penetrator-my-son.html
Ah, this is commonly calle
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:16 PM Warren D Smith wrote:
>
> x = x^x;
>
> The purpose of the above is to load "x" with zero.
Don't waste your time. Intel was offering that advice to writers of assembly
language and compilers. Gcc already does the right thing.
Try the following on an Intel/AMD
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
> It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB
> but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
>
> This seems like a microscopically small market segment. I can't see any
> s
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:56:47AM -0800, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
> Hello Folks
> You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
> http://www.aspectc.org/
> Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
> Would be cool to define aspect because it would make you
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:33:58AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard wrote:
> >
> >> That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to
> >> see
> >> happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to do!
> >
> >
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
>
> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressio
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:52:56AM -0700, FX wrote:
> > this is a known issue and strictly cygwin related. Please update your
> > cygwin environment to newest version, or disable decimal-floating
> > point by option.
>
> Well, maybe this is known, but it is not noted on the GCC 4.6.0 release
> no
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:38:02PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Our releases are normally built with GNU tar, which seems to default to
> --format=tar. I wonder if we should switch to --format=pax. The pax
> format was defined by POSIX.1 10 years ago, and should be widely
> supported at this
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 06:07:58AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
> * Speedup_areas wiki page is very interesting, but lacks measurements to
> help me assess the weight of each area mentioned. Any comments on those?
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> General comment: w
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> It sounds to me like the question "are you allowed to translate this" remains
> valid and open, even if this particular translator is not real.
Yes, the SC's discussing it with RMS now and I'm hopeful that there will
be some positive
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:30:16AM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Diogo Sousa wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I checked the "library functions in " item in c99status
> > (marked as "Library Issue") [http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html], and it
> > seems that glibc implements everythi
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
> If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
> pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
> of the array. According to this 0x8000 - 0x7FFF should be a valid
>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> -ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Gaby writes:
> Yes!
Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
subtraction, and then convert the result to signed? This would then guarantee
I'm confused. Since C++ treats the lack of a prototype as a hard error, what
does it mean to make -Wmissing-prototypes useless?
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of H.J. Lu
[hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:20:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Hmmm, you're right, -Wmissing-declarations seems to be equivalent to
> -Wmissing-prototypes when using C++. Sorry I missed that.
Then it would seem that HJ's issue could be fixed by treating
-Wmissing-prototypes as a synonym for
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:01PM -0700, Xiangfu Liu wrote:
> Hi
>
> I got the pdf file. and I also sent out the papers by postal mail.
> where is the pdf file I should send to?
>
> I have tried:
>copyright-cl...@fsf.org ass...@gnu.org
>
> and I don't know Donald R. Robertson's email addres
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
> >> "experimental" about it any more.
> >
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight wrote:
> I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
> unless there are no objects compiled with c++98 linked into the same
> executable.
Gabriel
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:35:17PM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> C++11 is essentially binary incompatible with C++98.
Only partially. The layout for user-defined classes is the same, and
code sequences for calls that don't include new features like rvalue
references is the same. Some very imp
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:04:34PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
> > Adding this to GCC seems like a total waste of time, write a dwarf
> > processor that dumps the info you want.
> >
>
> Agreed.
>
> I suspect there is a misunders
On 10/10/2011 08:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> PODness has changed from C++98.
Jason Merrill wrote:
> Class layout in the ABI still uses the C++98 definition of POD.
But does this actually matter? If I understand correctly, more classes are POD
under the C++11
rules than the C++98 rules, bu
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:33:54PM -0800, Aayush Upadhyay wrote:
> I'm a sophomore in college, and I'm a solid C programmer. I'd like to
work on an open source project, and the gcc compiler seems like a great
one. However, I'm not sure if work is still done on the compiler itself,
or just po
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
> later, which is incompat
> * Joe Buck:
>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
> >> you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
> >> compiled with GCC 4.4. The
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:34:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> > Robert Dewar writes:
>
> >> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
> >> this mailing list.
>
> > Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quit
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Erwin" == Unruh, Erwin writes:
>
> Erwin> In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
> Erwin> Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
> Erwin> should not matter for the c89 command
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:42:51AM -0700, Ross Smith wrote:
>
> On 2009-08-05, at 04:03, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > Another alternative would be an extra flag that would turn on
> > conformance
> > to the spec.
>
> Traditionally spelled -posixly-corre
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
> > say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
> > that is t
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Paul Smedley wrote:
> I'm wanting to update the GNU ADA compiler for OS/2... I'm currently
> building GCC 4.3.x and 4.4.x on OS/2 (C/C++/fortran) but for ADA
> configure complains about not finding gnat. The problem is that the
> only gnat compiled for OS/
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
> >
> > The wish for more granular and thus smaller debug information (things like
> > -gfunction-arguments which would properly show parameter values
> > for backtraces) was brought up. We agree that this shou
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:26:36AM -0800, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> My feeling is that Google's Go (quite a nice language from the slides I just
> have read) is almost "canonically" the case
> for a front-end plugin.
I have some major concerns about this suggestion. Isn't this a recipe for
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:07:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Paolo Carlini writes:
>
> > Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
> >> case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
> >> one field, and that fie
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:36:00PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
> My opinion is that code containing undefined behaviors is definitely
> interesting, but probably it is interesting in a different way than
> functions that are more meaningful.
Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me v
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:53:30PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
> > Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me very nervous.
> > If uninitialized memory reads are transformed into don't-cares, then
> > checking tools like valgrind will no longer see the UMR (assuming that
> > the lack of i
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:17:18AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > It shouldn't as *(int *)0 = 0; might trap. But if you want to be sure
> > use
> >__builtin_trap ();
> > instead for the whole sequence (the unreachable is implied then).
> > GCC choses a size-optimal trap representat
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
> > to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, yo
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0800, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources.
> The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital
> Mars DMD front end.
>
> The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright i
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:00:44AM -0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed
> > with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open
> > source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the
> > two are
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:23:45PM -0800, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Paolo Carlini
> wrote:
> > Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
> > standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
> > is an *highly* non-tr
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> --with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
> would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can
> we reconsider
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:37PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
> >> --with-arch on i686-p
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:00:07PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 4:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > But maybe I didn't ask the right question: can any x86 experts comment on
> > recently made x86 CPUs that would not function correctly with code
> > produced
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:45:49AM -0800, Martin Guy wrote:
> > You want to cater for a minority with old hardware. I
> > actually expect you'll find that those users are less naive than the
> > average gcc user.
> I want to cater for everyone, especially youngsters, learners and the
> poor strug
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I tried to do
>
> for (;; ({ break; }))
> printf("Hello\n");
>
> and got an error message:
>
> error: break statement not within loop or switch
But it only got through the parser, so that this error message
co
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:40:44PM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I tried to do
> > >
> &
> From: Ian Bolton [mailto:bol...@icerasemi.com]
> > Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
> > in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
> > turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:21:05PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
> Does -Os mean "optimize even if it ma
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I wrote a little blog post that shows off some of the things that Clang can
> do. It would be great to improve some of GCC/G++'s diagnostics in a similar
> way:
>
> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recover
> >> http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html
> >
> > ...As it happens, some C++ diagnostics are better than the
> > same diagnostic for C and viceversa.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:45:11AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> I think all the C examples are also valid C++
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:22:32AM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
> problem, as always, is who will do this job. But I don't think nobody
> will be against if you create a GCC blog/tweeter/youtube channel and
> start writing n
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >
> > The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
> > trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
> > copyright over a change.
>
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> The real issue is not the copyright disclaimer, it is the legal terms
> inside. Maybe U.Illinois don't use words like "unlumited liaibility".
Where are you getting this term "unlimited liability" from?
I think that your legal
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >>> The disclaimers are legally necessary t
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 06:03:21PM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> So we now have many plugin proposals & experiments. However, we do know
> that there are some legal/political/license issues on these points (with
> the GCC community rightly wanting as hard as possible to avoid
> proprietar
Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55:
[ proposal to localize keywords: replace if/else/return etc with
equivalents from the local language ]
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 06:42:17PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> God no. Think of the maintenance nightmare.
I guess it's easy for native English
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 09:54:36PM +0300, Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote:
> The following problem is very common when dealing with iterators,
> function objects and/or algorithms in C++.
Yes, I ran into this issue myself earlier this week. It's a more
general problem, striking whenever the arguments to a
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:18:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Lasse Kärkkäinen wrote on 15 October 2008 20:12:
>
> > The problem here is that the C++ standard requires line 8 to be
> > interpreted as a declaration of a function named str, returning string
> > and taking two arguments of type isbi (
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 01:19:51PM -0500, Omar Torres wrote:
> Since implementing 64-bit support for this target is out of the
> question in the immediate future, I am in the look for an alternative
> solution.
Can't you just emit library calls for all the 64 bit operations, and
get inefficient b
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 07:21:49PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Peng Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Could you please help explain what the difference between typeof and
> > decltype are? What are c++0x/g++0x modes?
>
> Well decltype is part of the C++0x standar
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:53:54PM +1000, Mark Tall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've come across an oddity in C++, involving anonymous unions and
> const variables. Neither of the two classes below will compile using
> gcc 4.3.0. Is this a bug in gcc or the C++ standard itself ?
>
> class my_class_1
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:43:40PM -0800, James Dennett wrote:
> (There are secondary uses of unions for type punning. Most such uses
> are not valid portable C++, but g++ supports them because they're so
> common in real code.)
On the contrary: the uses of unions for type-punning, while not port
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:16AM +0100, nadult wrote:
> Hello, i have some problems with empty (almost) structures containing
> zero-sized arrays:
>
> struct Zero { int value[0]; };
> int main() {
> std::cout << "sizeof(Zero)==" << sizeof(Zero) << '\n';
> return 0;
> }
>
> The output i
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:52:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:16AM +0100, nadult wrote:
> > Hello, i have some problems with empty (almost) structures containing
> > zero-sized arrays:
> >
> > struct Zero { int value[0]; };
> > int main
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:27:32AM +0800, Eric Fisher wrote:
> Ah, maybe I should say contributor.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:14:06PM +0100, Paul Chavent wrote:
> I wonder why there aren't any endianess attributes ?
Complicated to get them right in all circumstances. Even the
spec (defining how the attributes interact with aliasing analysis,
etc) would be a bear to get right.
One possibility
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:46:38PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I noticed that for a simple testcase:
> int t;
> void abort (void);
>
> int f(int t, const int *a)
> {
> const int b[] = { 1, 2, 3};
> if (!t)
> return f(1, b);
> return b == a;
> }
Note that in the above function, called
On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 11:39:55AM -0800, Chris wrote:
> Is it possible to have some sort of protocol in gcc, so that any
> unimplemented library function uses #warning or static_assert(0,"regex
> not implemented") to not to confuse any future users? I don't think
> gcc should provide headers tha
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 05:42:04AM -0800, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 06:52:18PM +1100, zol...@bendor.com.au wrote:
> > // Debug( tst->value );
> >
> >if ( ! tst ) {
> >ptr->next = (void *) 0;
> >break;
> >}
>
> This optimization c
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:51:22PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * David Edelsohn:
>
> > We have also published a rationale document and FAQ to help users
> > understand the exception better. It is avaliable at:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gcc-exception-faq.html
>
> Is it deliberate t
401 - 500 of 980 matches
Mail list logo
