On 2 November 2013 18:59, Mischa Baars wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 07:57 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Mischa Baars
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's the examples again, now each bug in a separate file. Hope it
>>> helps...
>>>
>>> Just compile with 'make' and run the execut
On 2 November 2013 21:52, Mischa Baars wrote:
> You are mistaken :)
>
> Indeed some rational numbers can only be represented up to a certain number
> of bits, like 1 / 3. Others can be exactly represented, like 1 / 8.
>
> All real numbers, and therefore all rational numbers, can be represented up
>
On 2 November 2013 22:12, Mischa Baars wrote:
> On 11/02/2013 11:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> On 2 November 2013 21:52, Mischa Baars wrote:
>>>
>>> You are mistaken :)
>>>
>>> Indeed some rational numbers can only be represented up to a cer
On 2 November 2013 22:40, Mischa Baars wrote:
>
> There's no converting to any string in your example. You only convert source
> code strings into their corresponding doubles.
Right. I never claimed my example converts to string, I said your example does.
> What I'm trying to point out is that th
On 3 November 2013 18:34, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been seeing a lot of these messages. I'm building from the repository
> (main trunk?) as of 1 hour ago or so (fairly up to date I think).
>
> Am I doing something wrong? Is this a bug?
(Your question would probably be more appropriate
On 28 October 2013 21:13, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> To make it easier to reproduce builds of software and entire GNU/Linux
>> distributions, RMS had the idea of adding a warning to GCC that warns
>> about the use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.
On 4 November 2013 22:26, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> The undefined behaviour study group of the C++ committee are
>> considering making it ill-formed, which would require a diagnostic.
>
> That still wouldn't cover command line arguments.
Ah yes, as it would still be predefined, but to the value g
On 5 November 2013 15:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
> In file included from /usr/include/sys/vt.h:1:0,
> from
> ../../../../trunk-gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:49:
> /usr/include/linux/vt.h:74:15: error: expected unqualified-id before ânewâ
> u
On 5 November 2013 15:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 November 2013 15:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>> In file included from /usr/include/sys/vt.h:1:0,
>> from
>> ../../../../trunk-gcc/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:49:
>&
On 5 November 2013 15:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 November 2013 15:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 5 November 2013 15:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote:
>>> In file included from /usr/include/sys/vt.h:1:0,
>>> from
>>> ../../../../tru
On 6 November 2013 10:45, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Are you including linux/vt.h yourself? If you get it via a glibc header
> then it's a SUSE issue, yes. Can you specify the SUSE version
> you are looking at? Even for 12.1 I see 'newev' here though SLE11
> seems to have 'new'.
libsanitizer inc
On 14 November 2013 11:31, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
>
> For C, I am not sure about, but I'd find it useful to have that warning
> enabled there too, so I guess I'd like to hear why the warning wasn't
> enabled there by default there as well.
A return statement with no operand is always wrong, but -Wr
On 17 November 2013 15:40, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> For "control reaches end of non-void function", I haven't activated by
> default and I called the option -Wfalloff-nonvoid-function
> Of course, that is just a proposal! :) Better names are welcome.
It was nearly called -Wmissing-return a decade
On 17 November 2013 18:25, Dominic News wrote:
> In the following code (from xorg-server)
>
> if (a == 0)
> addr = 0;
> (...)
> memset(addr, '\0', a);
>
> the path for a==0 is turned into a trap by -fisolate-erroneous-paths. (Is
> calling memset like this undefined behaviour?)
On 25 November 2013 06:46, Václav Zeman wrote:
> On 11/25/2013 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:52:49PM +0100, Václav Zeman wrote:
>>> Here is one idea for GSoC: Implement C++ locale support in libstdc++
>>> based on POSIX 2008 uselocale()/duplocale() facilities.
See ht
On 2 December 2013 02:29, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Sat, 8 Jun 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> 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/l
I'll look into the async failure when I get home in a few hours.
On Dec 7, 2013 9:58 PM, "Bruce Korb" wrote:
>
> On 12/07/13 12:59, Bruce Korb wrote:
>>
>> Googling:
>>
>>> gcc undefined reference to `lexer_line'
>>
>>
>> yields:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4262531/trouble-building-gcc-4-6
>>
>> Please check for it in configure and mention it in the
hread could
wake up and check for readiness before the shared state had been made
ready. Fixed by this patch.
Tested x86_64-linux and i686-linux, committed to trunk.
2013-12-08 Jonathan Wakely
* testsuite/30_threads/async/async.cc: Fix race condition in test.
commit 2141b30307e7802625e7
On 19 December 2013 23:15, Tae Wong wrote:
> More spam posts to be removed!
Using an email address with "seo" in it makes you look like a spammer.
Posting links to spam makes you look like a spammer.
Posting meaningless crap about mozilla bugzilla permissions and
wine-devel makes you look like a
On 20 December 2013 01:12, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:04 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 19 December 2013 23:15, Tae Wong wrote:
>> > More spam posts to be removed!
>>
>> Using an email address with "seo" in it makes you look lik
On 6 January 2014 20:54, Povilas Kanapickas wrote:
>
> I have a proof-of-concept implementation of floating-point printf()
> which is 4 to 6 times faster than the glibc printf() in common use cases
> while producing exactly the same output (including rounding, etc.). I
> would like to contribute it
On 16 January 2014 11:11, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 17/11/2013 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 17 November 2013 15:40, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>> For "control reaches end of non-void function", I haven't activated by
>>> default an
On 23 January 2014 17:49, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> (Redirected to the proper lists, excluding emacs-devel.)
Why do you think the gcc list is the proper place?
> The clang people aren't just a technical challenge to GCC, they're a
> philosophical/political one to the FSF as well. They are explic
On 23 January 2014 21:58, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Steven Bosscher :
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:27 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>> > I have not run direct checks on the quality of the optimized code, but
>> > reports from others that it is improved seem plausible in light of
>> > the fact that GC
On 23 January 2014 22:56, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> Unrelated to this thread, it would be great for this web page to get updated.
> You may find it to be "a better-supported point of view", but it is also
> comparing against clang 3.2, which is from the end of 2012, and a lot has
> changed since
On 24 January 2014 01:02, Gregory Casamento wrote:
>
> Granted, however, at the very least GCC should consciously ramp up it’s
> support for Objective-C. Currently the Objective-C implementation in GCC is
> woefully out of date as it doesn’t include basic support for ARC.
That's easy to say but
On 24 January 2014 10:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> 0ad, aria2, cupt, dssp, fish, fldigi, iverilog, mednafen, mkvtoolnix, mrs,
> nmap, v4l-utils:
> error: converting to '...' from initializer list would use explicit
> constructor '...'
That one was a GCC problem, fixed by
http://gcc.gnu.org/view
On 24 January 2014 10:08, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> brainparty, igstk:
> error: redeclaration of '...' may not have default arguments [-fpermissive]
G++ was fixed to reject this, the code is invalid.
>
> apron, cadabra:
> error: 'ptrdiff_t' does not name a type
These should be qualifying the
On Jan 25, 2014 1:32 AM, "Perry Smith" wrote:
>
> I think, a %D in a spec creates a list of -L/a/b/c -L/d/e/f. gcc -dumpspecs
> shows me that link_libgcc goes to %D but it does not show me what %D
> produces. Is there a way to get gcc to dump that out?
>
> Basically what I'm trying to do is fin
On 25 January 2014 16:00, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> First, my understanding of the C++11 standard thru
> http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function/function
> (which I know is imperfect, but I find it much more readable than
> n3337.pdf draft of C++11 )
> is that in prin
On 25 January 2014 23:40, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> That isn't similar and the use of std::array is irrelevant.
>> std::function involves type erasure, usually dynamic allocation, and
>> indirection through function p
On 26 January 2014 16:17, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I can definitely sympathise with reading the message the other way though.
> If that's the only output you see, the natural assumption is that the
> "enabled by default" applies to the thing just before it.
>
> Any objections to changing it to "t
On 30 January 2014 13:40, Conrad S wrote:
> The page covering C++0x/C++11 support in GCC, ie.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
> states that the "thread_local" keyword is supported since GCC 4.8.
>
> However, thread_local is currently (gcc 4.8.2) too broken to be of real use:
> http://gcc.g
On 5 February 2014 14:25, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> I'm trying to create a new account for the GCC wiki using the
>> account creation page at:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HomePage?action=newaccount
>> but things are not going well.
>>
>> I fill in the form and click create account. After
On 5 February 2014 14:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 14:25, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>> Hi -
>>
>>> I'm trying to create a new account for the GCC wiki using the
>>> account creation page at:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/HomePage?acti
On 7 February 2014 21:33, Renato Golin wrote:
>
> Worst still, with Clang and LLVM getting more traction recently, and
> with a lot of very interesting academic work being done, a lot of new
> things are getting into LLVM first (like the sanitizers, or some
> specialized pragmas) and we're dangerou
On 14 February 2014 07:46, Andrew Stern wrote:
> I created a CRTP (Curiously recurring template pattern)
> and added non-static member variables to my base class and that works without
> issue.
This mailing list is for development of GCC, not for bug reports or
help using it.
I would suggest the
On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On a related note, would a patch to officially enable
> -Wmissing-declarations in the build process be well regarded?
What would be the advantage?
> Since
> -Wmissing-prototypes is currently enabled, I assume it is the
> intention of the GCC devs
On 20 February 2014 10:02, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 13 February 2014 20:47, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> On a related note, would a patch to officially enable
>>> -Wmissing-declarations in the build proces
On 20 February 2014 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
> (I counted nearly 100 (non-debug)
> functions that could be made static in gcc, and 4 in libstdc++, by the
> way.)
Which were the four in libstdc++?
I only see __gslice_on_index and __concat_size_t.
On 20 February 2014 18:16, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 20 February 2014 15:31, Patrick Palka wrote:
>>> (I counted nearly 100 (non-debug)
>>> functions that could be made static in gcc, and 4 in libstdc++
On 3 March 2014 07:00, lin zuojian wrote:
> Hi guys,
> How do I set the format of vim,so that my code doen't look alien?
Do you mean how do you set vim to match the GCC coding style?
It's not quite right, and it's mostly used for C++, but I use:
setl formatoptions=croql cindent cinoptions=:0
On 4 March 2014 09:17, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 10:10:21AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 7:40 AM, lin zuojian wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > in include/linux/compiler-gcc.h :
>> >
>> > /* Optimization barrier */
>> > /* The "volatile" is due to gcc
On 11 March 2014 21:33, Falk, Katerina wrote:
> Dear Administrator,
>
> I tried installing GCC libraries, but it does not seem to work. I do not
> understand the problem why. This is the output from my Terminal window:
This mailing list is for development of GCC, for help using GCC please
use the
On 16 March 2014 16:20, Arthur Schwarz wrote:
> If the issue seems to be a bug then I will include whatever additional data
> is required to help gcc identify the error. If it is not a bug then I truly
> apologize for wasting your time.
It's not a bug, as you could easily have discovered by usin
On 18 March 2014 17:35, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote:
> hi list
> I need help
This is the wrong list for user support, please use the gcc-help
mailing list instead.
You will probably want to provide more information that "but cannot
work" if you expect anyone to be able to help.
On 22 March 2014 12:18, Klaus Rudolph wrote:
> I want to ask how I can find the bugs in bugzilla which are listed in
> the "Quality Data" Table. It feels that there are more bugs which are
> not listed. For example:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57694
That's a bug in 4.8 too, not a
On 26 March 2014 15:20, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Svante Signell writes:
>
>> autoconf 2.69:
>
> You must use autoconf 2.65, exactly.
And as it sounds like you're been messing the tree up, undo all your
local changes to the files that got touched by the wrong versions of
autoconf and automake, then
On 27 March 2014 09:35, Svante Signell wrote:
> - In an ideal situation no generated files should be shipped with a
> distribution, i.e. only configure.ac and Makefile.am, no configure,
> Makefile.in Makefile when not needed!
But then end users need to have the autotools installed.
Installing alt
On 27 March 2014 08:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Yes, this warning needs to take whitespace into account. But then, I
> suppose it would be fine.
That's what I was thinking. I've never seen someone write x =- 4 intentionally.
People who write x=-4 without any whitespace at all would just have to
On 27 March 2014 10:25, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 10:10 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 27 March 2014 09:35, Svante Signell wrote:
>> > - In an ideal situation no generated files should be shipped with a
>> > distribution, i.e. only confi
On 1 April 2014 14:43, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>
> The attached patch attempts to fix this issue. Since I no longer have
> write access, please
> apply this for me if correct (is the 4.8 branch still alive for adding
> fixes?).
For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
> Regardi
On 1 April 2014 15:00, Daniel Gutson wrote:
>> For regressions, yes, but I don't think this is a regression.
>
> Why not? (I don't know the criteria, please let me know).
Did it work in previous versions?
A regression means something that used to work no longer works.
> Upcoming Ubuntu LTS will
On 2 April 2014 23:26, David Guillen wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I don't know whether this is the best place to ask for this,
gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org would have been better :-)
On 15 April 2014 12:45, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
> No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you
> concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name been chosen to
> be more unique?
No argument from me there, but the same applies to VxWorks, who have
now chosen t
On 15 April 2014 13:08, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> AFAIK GCC's unwind.h installed into GCC's private directory, e. g.
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-pc-solaris2.11/4.8/include/unwind.h
>
> Is there any real problem?
Which header do you get if you say #include ?
Which header did you intend to include?
On 15 April 2014 22:13, Dave Yost wrote:
> If any of the authors of this section are interested in dramatically
> improving it,
> I volunteer to be a user testing subject.
>
> We use this information to maintain a driver for ld that allows specification
> of initialization order of all .o files,
On 17 April 2014 10:38, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the opt_random.h header includes unconditionally and breaks
> crytopp build
> (redefinition of _mm_shuffle_epi8 in cpu.h).
> could you please add #ifdef __SSSE3__ around this include?
Do you mean __SSE3__ not __SSSE3__?
That's the macro that c
Should they be?
On 8 February 2012 13:06, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 05:54 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should they be?
>>
>> Yes. Esp. also the deprecation of the __sync b
On 08/02/2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 02/08/2012 04:59 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Should they be?
> How's this look for a news item and the changes file? Formatting seems
> fine.
The news item is missing a + in C++
It's not critical for the changes.html page si
On 8 February 2012 21:49, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> That's what I get for following the same pattern as those TM jokers.
Heh :)
> OK, hows this look? I added a link in the news as well.
Looks great to me.
On 14 February 2012 22:26, Witold Baryluk wrote:
>
> I was trying to compile gcc-4.7 snapshots on Debian GNU/Linux wheezy
> (testing/unstable) i386, and found problem releated to multiarch.
This is a known issue with Debian that has been discussed several
times on the gcc and gcc-help lists, most
This question is not appropriate for this mailing list, questions
about using GCC should be sent to the gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org list,
please take any follow up there, thanks.
On 24 February 2012 08:34, Yang Yueming wrote:
>
> The result of xyz should be "0"，but it is "2468acf123579bc" ,same as xyz =
On 25 February 2012 19:06, Mahmood Naderan wrote:
>
> Does GCC report on optimizations? I mean, using -O3, it is good to see which
> part of code was the hardest part in optimization process. Or a report that
> shows which part of code used largest memory.
Have you looked at -fmem-report and -ft
2012/3/3 Paweł Sikora:
> On Friday 02 of March 2012 14:44:45 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>
>> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302
>>
>> and shortly its mirr
On 11 March 2012 15:32, niXman wrote:
>> And one more question: in which files/functions I can view the
>> implementation of auto and decltype?
Search for RID_AUTO and RID_DECLTYPE in gcc/cp/*.c
On 13 March 2012 07:41, wrote:
> Hello.
This should have been CC'd to the libstdc++ list too.
> C++ programs don't link anymore with gcc > 4.5.3 and eglibc 2.15 with
> OPTION_EGLIBC_LOCALE_CODE=n.
>
> It seems that gcc/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4 doesn't check for bugs in early
> glibc-2.2.x se
On 13 March 2012 09:37, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13 March 2012 07:41, wrote:
>> Hello.
>
> This should have been CC'd to the libstdc++ list too.
>
>> C++ programs don't link anymore with gcc > 4.5.3 and eglibc 2.15 with
>> OPTION_EGLIBC_LOCALE_C
On 16 March 2012 13:45, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> Richard Guenther schrieb:
>>
>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>
>> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120314
>>
>> and shortly its mirrors. It h
On 16 March 2012 17:19, David Malcolm wrote:
>
> What I'm really hoping for from GCC is a move towards a collection of
> libraries that can be embedded in (license-compatible) apps: LLVM is
> gaining ground for the use case of programs that need JIT-compilation
> (e.g. the X server, or a JVM). I a
On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some memory management
> policy (and
> ref-counting à la GTK, or à la std::shared_ptr is not enough IMHO inside a
> compiler
> because a compiler has much more complex and circular data struct
On Mar 19, 2012 5:56 AM, "Basile Starynkevitch" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:49:24 +
> Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > On 18 March 2012 16:56, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> > >
> > > * a garbage collector. Even a modular GCC need some
2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>
>> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120314
>>
>> and shortly its m
2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
> 2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
>> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>
>>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>>
>>> A second release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
> 2012/3/19 Jonathan Wakely :
>> 2012/3/19 Paweł Sikora:
>>> On Wednesday 14 of March 2012 12:22:41 Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>>
>>>> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>>>>
>>&
On 19 March 2012 14:56, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> thus : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-03/msg02155.html
>
> === gcc tests ===
>
>
> Running target unix
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c -O0 (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-ex
On 19 March 2012 15:30, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>>
>> I think you should be able to do something like:
>>
>> make check RUNTESTFLAGS=compile.exp=gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c
>>
>
> Thank you for the quick reply.
>
> Hr, tried that and didn't get very far probably because the
> srcdir
2012/3/20 :
> Is it a bug or by design? Who can answer the question for me?
This list is for discussing the development of GCC not for help using
it, so this is the wrong mailing list for your question. It would be
more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list, please take an
follow-up there, tha
On 21 March 2012 15:35, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>>
>
> I am not sure what you expect from me. As I said many times, I have not a
> global understanding of GCC (the "global reviewers" have a much better
> global understanding than I do). So I cannot propose or initiate a list of
> modules.
>
> O
On 29 March 2012 17:52, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 11:42:30 -0500
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> I suspect that if plugins people want to make progress on this
>> recurring theme, they
>> will have to come up with a specification and an API. Otherwise, they have
>> only
>> t
On 31 March 2012 13:38, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> (I think that printf in AWK script is a GNU extension).
Nope, it's standard.
On 5 April 2012 11:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> Note that some of the above depend on optimization flag settings
>> (and optimization happening). Those are not good candidates - I think
>> good candidates are those that would still be fully operational with
>> -fsyntax-only.
>
> I am not sure
On 5 April 2012 11:16, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
>
> OK, the above list looks reasonable to me at least as a starting point
> that could be a bit refined (not sure -Wstrict-aliasing is so useful by
> default for instance for legacy code),
-Wstrict-aliasing is only active when -fstrict-aliasing is on,
On 8 April 2012 16:16, James Cloos wrote:
>
> Sure. Making a few more of the -W flags on by default may be OK,
> depending on the chosen list. It is the idea of turing all possible
> warning options on by default which is unreasonable.
Noone's suggested doing that. As Gaby said, -Wall doesn't tu
On 8 April 2012 19:51, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> The people who don't want -Wall (or
>> -Wstandard) enabled are likely to be the ones who know how to use
>> -Wno-all or whatever to get what they want.
>
>
> I
On 8 April 2012 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/8/2012 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Again, that also applies when people use -Wall today: a false positive
>> is unwanted even if you use -Wall, and those false positives are bugs
>> and so having them in bugzil
On 9 April 2012 10:59, Paul Smedley wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As part of updating the OS/2 port of GCC from v4.4.x to v4.6.x I've hit a
> snag where the passing of options to the linker is no longer working.
>
> Previous OS/2 builds of gcc have supported -Zlinker on the command line
> to pass the o
On 9 April 2012 18:29, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> That would be my preferred solution -- by far. But, my understanding
>> is that that would provoke a riot so I am willing to compromise by
>> introducing a new warning switch (even if I dislike that thought.)
>> Hopefully, it is it is going to be the
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
> challenging mainly due to printf. Kai added a lot of support for
> handling whacky windows printfs, and we we
On 11 April 2012 13:57, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Now, how many release cycles do we have until LLVM is basically good
> enough to be used as a distro compiler (e.g., until code quality and
> confidence in bug freedom is sufficiently similar)? If we haven't
> ensured that GCC is appealing by this ti
On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code
> quality, performance, etc, but the advantage and gap is quickly
> reducing (e.g, LLVM is the default compiler in Xcode) -- and other
> advantages in LLVM (will soon) outweigh it
On 11 April 2012 21:00, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code
>>> quality, perf
On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently.
>>
>> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's
>> diagnostics to GCC 4.2, whic
On 12 April 2012 11:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
> And since yesterday GCC shows
>
> t.C:2:10: error: expected ';' after class definition
> class a {}
> ^
> t.C:6:1: error: expected ';' after struct definition
> }
> ^
>
> as we now enabled -fdiagnostics-show-caret by default.
Yep :-)
B
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
It would even allow -Winf for the
sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-act
Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
reload the page?
Opening the page in a new tab shows the changes have been saved, but
the page still keeps loading. Is there some kind of re-indexing going
on which is incredibly inefficient? Or does the moinmoinwiki code
simp
On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
> reload the page?
By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still
spinning saying the page is loading!
> Opening the page in a new tab shows th
On 12 April 2012 11:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Two more examples, then I'll save it for a wiki page instead of the
> mailing list:
And here it is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison
1201 - 1300 of 2300 matches
Mail list logo
