Re: gcc-4.5-20101125: minor bug & test results

On 1 December 2010 02:45, Russell Whitaker wrote: > > Minor build bug: The cpp sanity check fails because it is looking for cpp in > /lib instead of /usr/bin Like http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40950 ? In that case it was because there was no C++ compiler installed when building gcc.

Re: questions about cv-qulifier for function.

On 1 December 2010 10:28, zhang qingshan wrote: > Hi, team This sort of question should be sent the mailing list gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org, not the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org. gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for the development of gcc itself. Please take any future questions about using gcc to gcc-help. Thank

Re: internal compiler error in gcc trunk when using std::map

On 10 December 2010 00:40, Nathan Ridge wrote: > > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See for instructions. This mailing list is not the right way to report bugs, you should have followed the instructions in the output you q

Re: 4.5.2 20101213 (prerelease) ??

On 13 December 2010 15:31, Dennis Clarke wrote: > Dear GCC folks : > > I have been closely watching the testsuite results as they come in and I > have yet to see anyone do anything with the 4.5.2 RC for Solaris. Other > than me of course. I have seen some work by Laurent GUERBY on 4.5.2 RC > 20101

Re: default system path questions

On 23 December 2010 22:17, Edward Peschko wrote: > All, > > I found much to my dismay today that -I doesn't always work as > intuited. Namely, if I set CFLAGS to: > > -I/path/to/gcc/include > where the default system path is: > > /path/to/gcc/lib/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.4.6/include > /usr/local/inc

Re: call for libstdc++ profile mode diagnostic ideas

On 29 December 2010 01:15, Hargett, Matt wrote: > > 1) allocation of std::string in local variable > 2) calls to said local string's c_str() method within loops > 3) and said loops do not modify the contents of the value returned from > c_str() You can't modify the contents, c_str() returns a con

Re: r168382 - in /trunk/libstdc++-v3: ChangeLog Mak...

On 1 January 2011 03:43, Dongsheng Song wrote: > I think gcc-cvs mail list should set reply address to gcc@gcc.gnu.org > instead of gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org. Well this mail is probably best suited to the libstdc++ mailing list, so setting Reply To as gcc wouldn't help here. I've CC'd the libstdc++ lis

Re: access to static data member fails with indirect ptr

On 4 January 2011 14:11, Klaus Rudolph wrote: > >> > Is my code wrong >> >> Yes.  You need to define A::x. > > Grrr... so stupid! :-) > > Yes, you are right. I stumbled that only a few lines generates an error. Yes, > the compiler optimize them out if the access is direct. With -O3 > it compiles a

Re: gcc interprets C++0x initialization construct as function declaration

On 3 January 2011 05:24, Nathan Ridge wrote: > > Is this the desired behaviour? Questions about whether code is valid or whether gcc has a bug should be sent to the gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org mailing list or entered into bugzilla, thanks.

Re: RFC: Add 32bit x86-64 support to binutils

On 30 December 2010 18:23, H.J. Lu wrote: > > This patch adds 32bit x86-64 support to binutils. Support in compiler, > library and OS is required to use it. It can be used to implement the > new 32bit OS for x86-64. Any comments? I have a small comment on the changes to the c-i386.texi docs: di

Re: Bug triage

On 7 January 2011 04:59, Tony Poppleton wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to help with some gcc bug triage, and have a few > questions about doing so. Excellent, thanks for volunteering your time. > For example, in cases where a bug doesn't have a test case as an > attachment, but instead embedded in

Re: Bug triage

On 10 January 2011 16:08, Jeff Law wrote: > > But I think the key is to just keep the necessary builds hanging around, > at least for the most popular targets. The GCC Compile Farm has a number of releases installed under /opt/cfarm/release/ See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm

Re: Dumb idea for accelerating FOSS development

On 12 January 2011 14:07, Bill Cox wrote: > > Well, after a short nap, the thought of fixing this in gcc seems even > dumber to me, though the problem is quite real.  Another tool called > before gcc could get the header and library files into a place where > they could be used.  It could even be c

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 13 January 2011 11:09, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, David Brown wrote: >> >> I can see how such a feature could be useful, but is there any reason why it >> should be part of gcc, rather than a separate program that takes a cpp file >> and generates an hpp file

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 13 January 2011 13:06, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> On 13 January 2011 11:09, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: >>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>> I can see how

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 13 January 2011 16:59, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: >>> >>> The pragma can be ignored by other compilers. Conditional compilation >>> would help in including the header for other compilers. >> >> Except the header wouldn't exist if you use other compilers, because >> you need gcc to generate it.

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 14 January 2011 13:26, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: > My proposal does not change the language in any way, it only is a > copy-and-paste job. That's not true, your example with an inline member function demonstrates that the compiler must be changed to support your proposal, so that functions de

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 14 January 2011 15:39, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Axel Freyn wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:17:12PM +0200, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely >>> wrote: >>> &

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 14 January 2011 17:10, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: >>> There is a solution to that: the compiler, knowing that foo::bar is >>> not an inline function, it does not inline the function but it >>> automatically compiles the relevant symbol in the foo.o object file. >> >> Which is a change to the la

Re: Proposal for automatic generation of c++ header files

On 14 January 2011 16:39, Achilleas Margaritis wrote: > > I have already explained it, but I don't mind explaining it once more: > > 1) the pragma #autoinclude ("foo.hpp", "foo.cpp") instructs the > compiler to generate the header 'foo.hpp' from the implementation file > 'foo.cpp'. > > 2) the compi

Re: gcc 4.6 release date

2011/1/17 Pawel Sikora : > > will 4.6 c++0x regression (experimental code) will be taken into account? > i'm assking because i'm currently use few c++0x features in my code base > with 4.5 and would be nice to have 4.6 with the same c++0x subset working. You can look at the priority field in bugzi

Re: Objective-C

On 19 January 2011 01:13, Carles Setó wrote: > Dear GNU managers, Please don't cross-post like this - your question is suitable to the gcc-help mailing list, not the other addresses you used. Please keep any follow up to the gcc-help list, thanks. > I have installed gcc-4.5.0. on my PC and I w

Re: [Patch] [C++0x] Support decltype as base-specifier (Bug 42603)

On 20 January 2011 14:26, Adam Butcher wrote: > Hi there, > > Attached is a tentative patch to support using decltype as a > base-type-specifier (Re: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42603). > > It should handle also the case where decltype is used as the start of a > nested-name-speci

Re: Error building gcc 4.5.2 for AVR

On 24 January 2011 22:49, Omar Choudary wrote: > > I am creating a script for building GCC 4.5.2 for the AVR target: > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~osc22/files/install_avr_tools.sh > > I have some troubles when building GCC-4.5.2, see below, maybe you can > help me; thanks: This question is off-topic

Re: Building Relocatable GCC

On 25 January 2011 22:19, Kyle Girard wrote: > > I'm trying compile a version of gcc-4.5 on linux x86 for linux x86 which > is relocatable but I'm having difficulty. > > Does anyone have an example of how to build such a relocatable gcc? > > I've been building binutils, and gcc-4.5 over and over >

NetBSD bootstrap (was: Target deprecations for 4.6)

On 28 January 2011 01:11, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > * a.out NetBSD (arm*-*-netbsd* not matching arm*-*-netbsdelf*, > i[34567]86-*-netbsd* not matching i[34567]86-*-netbsdelf*, vax-*-netbsd* > not matching vax-*-netbsdelf*). This implies some x86 targets are expected to work, but NetBSD-current ca

Re: temp obj created by compiler

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 05:44:52AM -0800, san san wrote: > Hi Jonathan & Everyone, Hello again San, > What i want to know is how to find what are the > temporaries inserted by the compl. I don't think I understand your question properly. > I tried looking into the ABI but couldn't get much > h

Re: temp obj created by compiler

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 06:08:55AM -0800, san san wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks again for replying. Let me clarify my problem: > I have an assembly file of a .cpp file, from the > assembly file i want to figure out where the compl has > created temp objects. Ah, I see what you mean now - but I pro

Re: License text irregularity in gcc/config/mips/linux-unwind.h

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Sam Lauber wrote: > __Way__ to close to the LGPL. The LGPL in effect, says the > GPL with that kind exception (letting people link this > with there program regardless of whether the license is > GPL-compatible). I think that those exceptions in > `l

Re: GCC 3.3.5: -march=i586 does not use all pentium FPU instructions

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:38:03PM +0100, Sam Lauber wrote: > I think Intel's confusing numbering system has confused > you. All ix86 processors, if the expression > x in first ix86 < x in second ix86 > holds true, then second ix86 is compatible. The i586 is > NOT the Pentium. So why does th

Re: GCC 3.3.5: -march=i586 does not use all pentium FPU instructions

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:58:42PM -, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Jonathan Wakely > > Sent: 11 February 2005 16:34 > > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 04:38:03PM +0100, Sam Lauber wrote: > > > > > I th

Re: GCC 3.3.5: -march=i586 does not use all pentium FPU instructions

On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 05:14:52PM -, Dave Korn wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: 'Jonathan Wakely' > > Sent: 11 February 2005 17:06 > > > Debating the difference between Pentium, pentium, i586 etc. > > is off-topic > >

__LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'

I'm hoping someone knows what this is due to, can't see anything in bugzilla. $ cat bug.c long double f = __LDBL_MAX__; $ gcc4x -c bug.c $ gcc4x -c bug.c -pedantic -save-temps bug.c: In function 'main': bug.c:1: error: floating constant exceeds range of 'long double' I only get the error with -p

Re: __LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:22:30PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I'm hoping someone knows what this is due to, can't see anything in bugzilla. > > $ cat bug.c > long double f = __LDBL_MAX__; > $ gcc4x -c bug.c > $ gcc4x -c bug.c -pedantic -save-temps > bu

Re: How does g++ implement error handling?

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:32:52PM +0800, Euler Herbert wrote: > Hi everyone, Hi, > I am trying to find out how g++ implements error handling. > My environment is CPU AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+, Debian GNU/Linux > 3.1, GCC 3.4.3-6, and Glibc 2.3.2.ds1-20. After researching > assembling codes ge

Re: Question regarding c++ constructors

On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 12:45:51PM +0100, Mile Davidovic wrote: > Hello all > > I have stupid question regarding constructors and destructors in c++. > After compilation there are two assembler functions (__ZN4testC2Ev, > __ZN4testC1Ev) > that represent constructor, same is for destructors (__ZN

Re: Default constructor and uninitialized const

On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:32:33PM +0100, Peter Seiderer wrote: > Thanks, reproducable with intel: > > # icc -strict_ansi default_constructor.cpp > default_constructor.cpp(17): warning #854: const variable "a2" requires an > initializer -- class "A2" has no explicitly declared default constructor

Re: Trying to find a link for information about parsing template parameters and the >> problem

On 1 April 2013 20:43, Alec Teal wrote: >> I don't have a link, but it seems to me that the issue is obvious. >> The C++ lexer recognizes >> as a single token. So when you write >> std::vector> >> the final >> is parsed as a single token, rather than the two separate >> tokens that the parser

Re: Updating svn.html

On 3 April 2013 16:48, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > Hello Everyone, > I would like to add the following information about my cilkplus > branch under "Language-specific" in the SVN.html webpage. Do I send this as a > patch or is there a specific person I should contact with the information? > >

Re: google summer of code 2013

On 31 March 2013 18:35, Edik Bondarenko wrote: > I am a student of Dnipropetrovsk National University. I am studying on > the fourth course. > I want to do 'Precision in Wording' for gcc. > Clang can shows exact description of the error with the instructions > how to fix it and I often need to use

Macro for C++14 support

I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14 at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use. Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to -std=c++1y? Alternatively we could set the value of __cplusplus to 201400L but I'm not sure

Re: Macro for C++14 support

On 21 April 2013 18:05, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > Jonathan Wakely ha scritto: > >>I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14 >>at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use. >> >>Will there be a macro lik

Re: Macro for C++14 support

On 23 April 2013 15:29, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Hi, > > Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto: > >>There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am >>inclined >>to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target. > > This clarified - thanks - I'm wondering if it's safe to

Re: Macro for C++14 support

On 23 April 2013 15:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > >> But remember we no longer use __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ anyway, > > yes, this was a great move; kudos to whoever did it. That was Jason, when he changed

Re: gcc home page

On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote: > Hi, > > I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes. > In C++ paragraph about explicit override control. > In example code, is it really struct, not class? Yes, that's valid C++, the example is fine.

Re: _contribute.html_: missing information regarding feedback procedure

On 10 May 2013 12:29, Zvi Gilboa wrote: > Greetings, > > At the very bottom of the above page (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html), > there is no indication of GCC only accepting *plain text* messages. That would belong on http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html but it could be improved, as it only says "Pl

Re: Buzilla SVN commit messages

On 12 May 2013 11:38, Oleg Endo wrote: > Hi, > > I've noticed that for some reason SVN commit messages stopped showing up > in Bugzilla PRs a while ago (before the Bugzilla 4.4 update). It was the sourceware.org hardware upgrade. The svn commit hook that used to email bugzilla wasn't migrated ove

Re: Buzilla SVN commit messages

On 20 May 2013 17:23, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Sun, 2013-05-12 at 12:33 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 12 May 2013 11:38, Oleg Endo wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I've noticed that for some reason SVN commit messages stopped showing up >> > in Bugzil

Re: GCC 4.8.1 Released

On 31 May 2013 12:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.8.1 has been released. > > GCC 4.8.1 is the first bug-fix release containing important fixes for > regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.8.0 with over 91 bugs fixed since > the previous release. Support for C++11 re

Re: gcc home page

On 2 June 2013 19:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote: >>> I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes. >>> In C++ paragraph about explicit override control. >&g

Broken links to libstdc++ docs

Once again the links from http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ to the libstdc++ docs don't work: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.4/libstdc++/manual/ http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.3/libstdc++/manual/

Re: 4.8.1 fails to build on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

On 10 June 2013 16:59, Piotr Wyderski wrote: > I have a set of the required libraries built and installed into > separate directories, so when gcc is configured with: > > ../configure --prefix=/opt/tools/gcc-4.8.1 > --with-gmp=/opt/tools/gmp-5.1.2 --with-mpfr=/opt/tools/mpfr-3.2.1 > --with-mpc=/opt

Re: 4.8.1 fails to build on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

I've just noticed this mail was sent to the gcc@ list, which is for development of GCC itself. For help using and installing GCC please use the gcc-help@ list instead, see http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

Re: [C++14] Admit C++ keywords as literal suffixes.

On 18 June 2013 07:04, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14 > faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float > operator: > > constexpr complex > operator"" i_f(); // fugly > > The obvious choice > constexpr compl

Re: [C++14] Admit C++ keywords as literal suffixes.

On 18 June 2013 08:35, Andreas Schwab wrote: > According to 2.14.8#10 this is ill-formed. It's ill-formed for users to define it, but not ill-formed according to the language grammar, and the compiler would need to implement that grammar if operator""if gets added to the standard library (which co

Re: Compiling GCC under Cygwin

On 20 June 2013 11:00, Arjen Markus wrote: > Hi Angelo, > > well, the DOS-style path only caused a warning in the configure step, > so I assumed it was okay. > It was not apparently. Building out-of-source is an instruction I must > have missed. It's documented here http://gcc.gnu.org/install/conf

Re: Variadic Template Specialization vis a vi the INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2011 standard

On 30 June 2013 18:17, Aaron Gray wrote: > Prompted by a Stack Overflow article :- > > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17332749/vs2013-fails-with-variadic-template-specialization/ > > There seems to be anomalies between GCC 4.8.1's 0x11 implementation > and the standard. Then please repo

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> Lots of warnings like this: >> >> ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally >> defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] >> >> when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) > > This warning is new in GCC 4.8, an

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> Lots of warnings like this: >> >> ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally >> defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] >> >> when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) > > This warning is new in GCC 4.8, an

Re: typos

On 4 July 2013 08:20, Marc Glisse wrote: > > The script could do with some improvements, but it would be good indeed to > fix some of those typos. > > - the script creates non-words : suppresss Yes, I noticed "functino" being changed to "functiono" :-) > I also believe you should separate comment

Re: List of typos.

On 5 July 2013 16:43, Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > Hi, I ran aspell on comments in gcc. After bit of cleaning a list with > frequencies is here. It is still relatively noisy and more heuristics > are needed. > > http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/gcc_misspells > > What we will do with this now? It doesn't l

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 7 July 2013 15:00, Bruce Korb wrote: > On 07/06/13 11:53, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Bruce Korb writes: >> >>> Why is it that configure worked but stubs-32.h was not found? >> >> >> This is testing the host compiler which doesn't need that file. You >> need to build the target compiler befor

Re: List of typos.

On 7 July 2013 15:21, Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > I worked how to make this more efficient. I created patch with obvious cases > in hour. (only comments in c files though.) > > http://kam.mff.cuni.cz/~ondra/gcc_misspell.patch Some of the code fixed by that (boehm-gc, zlib, libsanitizer) is maintained

Re: List of typos.

On 7 July 2013 15:21, Ondřej Bílka wrote: > > discontiguousdiscontinuous This one is incorrect - the libstdc++ header is talking about contiguous memory, not continuous memory (arguably it should be non-contiguous, but leaving it alone is better than changing it to discontinuous.)

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 7 July 2013 21:33, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > How about not enabling multi lib build by default on targets we now that > will fail anyway? I have the suspicion this problem is unique to openSUSE, > so we can take care of that. I'm pretty sure I've seen it happen with RHEL and Fedora, and Ubuntu

Re: List of typos.

On 8 July 2013 01:29, Ryan Hill wrote: > On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 21:57:05 +0200 > Oleg Endo wrote: > > >> - // Randomize the colour, just for asthetics =) >> + // Randomize the colour, just for aesthetics =) >> >> -> missed 'color' (in a couple of places actually) > > Because that's the correct way

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On Jul 8, 2013 4:39 PM, "Bruce Korb" wrote: > > Any solution other than an explanation-less "fatal error: > gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file" > is fine. There is no way to translate that message into > "Either --disable-multilib or else install glibc 32 bit development" > without coming up with the ri

Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?

On 9 July 2013 13:04, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 07/09/2013 12:59 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote: >> With this situation at hand, I wonder whether it's a good idea to keep >> maybe-uninitialized included in -Wall. Projects which have been using >> "-Wall -Werror" successfully for many years are now forced

Re: List of dead links.

On 10 July 2013 15:00, Ondřej Bílka wrote: >> > I prefer fix issues one class at time. I added script that checks dead > links by extracting http addresses from sources and checking them by curl -f. > It found: > > $ ./stylepp/script/stylepp_warn_dead_link > > Dead link: http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1

Re: List of dead links.

On 10 July 2013 15:47, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 16:00 +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote: > >> Dead link: http://fedora.linux.duke.edu/fc1_x86_64 > > FWIW, this link occurs in historical notes at the top of these files: > zlib/contrib/inflate86/inffas86.c > zlib/contrib/masmx64/inffa

Re: List of dead links.

On 10 July 2013 16:22, Ondřej Bílka wrote: >> Thanks. Ondřej, as stated a few times now, anything in zlib, >> boehm-gc, etc. is maintained outside the GCC project. Do you have any >> way to filter out certain directories from being checked by your >> scripts? > > I have (place .indent.off file to

Re: Should -Wmaybe-uninitialized be included in -Wall?

On 10 July 2013 17:11, Andi Kleen wrote: > FWIW basically -Werror -Wall defines a compiler version specific > variant of C. May be great for individual developers, but it's always > a serious mistake in any distributed Makefile. That's a very nice way to put it.

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 16 July 2013 13:46, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I think this is actually a glibc problem. I wonder if it's possible to >> install a stubs-32.h file in a suitable location by default which contains >> an illuminating #error directive. Tha

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 16 July 2013 16:04, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Agreed. It is surprising that we allowed ourselves to > break the most common target this way. It isn't broken, we just don't list one of the prerequisites in the installation docs.

Re: note generating in case of type confliction

On 18 July 2013 20:32, Klin Iop wrote: > Hello, > > I'm mostly new to gcc, so I don't really have a real idea how notes are > generated. More exactly I would like to know, how types are compared during > compilation, and what makes the compiler decide to throw a message in case > they aren't equ

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 27 July 2013 14:56, David Starner wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> GCC can detect at configure time that it will fail. It is clearly >> a computable problem. It's a matter of someone doing it rather than >> insisting that the world should change to suit them. >

Re: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file

On 31 July 2013 20:44, Matthias Klose wrote: > if you mention distribution specific packages, please add the ones needed for > some distributions. For Debian/Ubuntu this would be g++-multilib if the > architecture is multilib'ed, g++ otherwise. That's not the package that provides gnu/stubs-32.h,

Re: why cross out cout make result different?

Please take this to the gcc-help mailing list, as requested. On 3 August 2013 16:34, eric lin wrote: > Hello, I follow your suggestion change from Macro to function, it improved a > little bit, but still not correct result > -- > root@eric-laptop:/home/eric/fundamentalsofdatastructuresincpp/ch7#

Re: i386 __atomic_compare_exchange_n not found

On 6 August 2013 15:47, Deng Hengyi wrote: > > And i have found some mail list talking about gcc has remove lock free atomic > int support [1][2], is this true? or just some error caused by my toolchain? > > I am waiting for your reply, Thank you! > > > [1]. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-12/msg00

Re: i386 __atomic_compare_exchange_n not found

On 6 August 2013 16:30, Deng Hengyi wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > Thank you for your reply. > And about the error i encounter, do you have any advice? maybe it is caused > by my toolchain not install rightly? > In the standard pc686 architecture(not cross compile on RTEMS) will it > encounter the sim

Re: Git mirror changes

On 22 July 2013 21:39, Jason Merrill wrote: > I'd like to make some changes to the GCC git-svn mirror. Specifically, I > want to move all the SVN branches from remotes/ into heads/ and split the > subdirectory branches (redhat, google, etc) into the individual branches. > > Should I leave the SVN

Re: Git mirror changes

On 7 August 2013 00:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 22 July 2013 21:39, Jason Merrill wrote: >> I'd like to make some changes to the GCC git-svn mirror. Specifically, I >> want to move all the SVN branches from remotes/ into heads/ and split the >> subdirectory branches

Re: libstdc++ test case ext/headers.cc failed on arm-none-eabi

On 7 August 2013 14:10, David Edelsohn wrote: > The same error occurs on AIX because the tests are run without pthreads. We moved the thread to the libstdc++ list, where I pointed out that is missing the "#pragma GCC system_header" that would suppress the warnings.

Re: __ARM_arch___

On 8 August 2013 17:03, zhaobin xv wrote: > I want to find a manual about preprocessor mecro include __ARM_arch___ Please don't cross-post to the gcc and gcc-help lists, just pick one. Your question is appropriate for the gcc-help list, please take any follow-up there.

Re: i386 __atomic_compare_exchange_n not found

On 9 August 2013 17:59, Joe Buck wrote: > The i386 architecture lacks atomic compare instructions, to the point > where libstdc++ can't be built with that architecture (correct and > efficient atomic operations are vital important for libstdc++, andon i386 > it can't be done). I think libstdc++ ca

Re: GCC for Android Shell

On 13 August 2013 18:27, Piotr Miłek wrote: > Hi, > Can we send me the compiled gcc and gcc for Android Shell (armeabi). I > would like to have data after uncpack with a minimum size 50 MB. Sory > my bad English. This question is off-topic for this mailing list, questions about using and installin

Re: Vandalised wiki page

On 23 August 2013 08:01, Václav Zeman wrote: > On 08/23/2013 12:12 AM, Alec Teal wrote: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning >> >> Reported by "kobrien" on the Freenode IRC network, channel #gcc just >> now, I'm just sending the message. > Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/RecentCha

Re: Vandalised wiki page

On 23 August 2013 15:44, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > >> > Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/RecentChanges shows that the GCC wiki >> > is being spammed a lot. Somebody should employ some kind of spam >> > protection. > > Several other sourceware-hosted moin wikis have adopted a group-ACL-bas

Re: Vandalised wiki page

On 23 August 2013 16:04, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 23 August 2013 15:44, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> Hi - >> >>> > Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/RecentChanges shows that the GCC wiki >>> > is being spammed a lot. Somebody should employ some kind of spam

Re: Vandalised wiki page

On 23 August 2013 16:25, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Hi - > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 04:06:22PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> [...] >> (Assuming we want to go down the ACL route.) > > Done! :-) Thanks. I've reverted or deleted all the spam I could find (and t

Re: ilp32 far pointers

On 15 September 2013 14:58, David McQuillan wrote: > > The basic aim of ilp32 is to emulate an old 32 bit environment on a new > processor that supports 64 registers and pointers. However that has never > been the real aim, if one was just trying to support old programs there > would be little need

Re: Broken links to online gcc manual

On 21 September 2013 09:11, Niels Möller wrote: > I tried to find the gcc manual online, and it was harder than I > expected. You can find them via www.gnu.org, or go straight to the GCC website, http://gcc.gnu.org/ > The page https://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/ links to > https://www.gnu.org/softw

Re: g++ -Wl,--as-needed -pthread behaviour

On 24 September 2013 02:22, Alan Modra wrote: > > Try compiling that testcase with -static rather than -Wl,--as-needed. > You'll hit std::system_error just like you do here. I believe that is > a libstdc++ bug, and can be solved by making libstdc++.a use strong > references to pthread symbols from

Re: g++ -Wl,--as-needed -pthread behaviour

On 24 September 2013 13:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:13:53PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> It's the std::thread constructor template that needs pthread_create. >> std::thread::join() needs pthread_join. > > Are any references to that needed in

Re: g++ -Wl,--as-needed -pthread behaviour

On 24 September 2013 13:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:34:52PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 24 September 2013 13:24, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 01:13:53PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> It's the std::thr

Re: google branch breakage

On 1 October 2013 16:49, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > Paolo, does attached patch look correct for trunk? There would need to be a corresponding _GLIBCXX_END_NAMESPACE_VERSION.

Re: google branch breakage

On 1 October 2013 16:49, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > The same problem likely exists on trunk, so please do tell how to configure > GCC in order to reproduce it. The std::__7 namespace implies --enable-symvers=gnu-versioned-namespace'

Re: google branch breakage

On 1 October 2013 17:00, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 1 October 2013 16:49, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: >>> >>> The same problem likely exists on trunk, so please do tell how to configure >>> GCC in order

Re: Invocation mismatch - some data files may have been removed

This mailing list is about development of GCC itself, not for help using GCC. The gcc-bugs list is not the right list either. Your question would be more appropriate on the gcc-help list. On 3 October 2013 09:54, wrote: > Hi, > > While executing shell script (*.sh) I am seeing some warnings.

Re: gnu software bugs - shift left

On 2 November 2013 18:57, Mischa Baars wrote: > > I understand, however it seems more logical to use the destination type to > determine the type of the first and second operand. > > Are you completely sure this is the desired behaviour? It's the behaviour required by the C standard, so yes, it is

<    7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >