Re: Killing old dead bugs

On 17 July 2017 at 21:25, Yuri Gribov wrote: > What to do about bugs originating in upstream packages? I noticed > they sometimes get closed with "RESOLVED MOVED" resolution > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58841) but often this > does not happen and they just hang in tracker foreve

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On 18 July 2017 at 16:32, Yuri Gribov wrote: > Jonathan also mentioned something not immediately obvious in IRC: > logging into BZ with gcc.gnu.org account provides elevated privileges. > So if you have write access, you should get extra BZ rights for free. We should document this at https://gcc.g

Re: Killing old dead bugs

On 19 July 2017 at 19:15, Eric Gallager wrote: > On 7/18/17, Yuri Gribov wrote: >> Jonathan also mentioned something not immediately obvious in IRC: >> logging into BZ with gcc.gnu.org account provides elevated privileges. >> So if you have write access, you should get extra BZ rights for free. >>

Re: broken link on this page https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html for link to "Profile Mode" page:

On 2 August 2017 at 13:55, Sergei Kurenkov wrote: > Link on this page https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html for "Profile Mode": > > * The libstdc++ Profile Mode has been deprecated and will be removed > in a future version. > > gives: > > Not Found > > The requested URL > /onlinedocs/gcc-7.1.0/lib

Re: void function declared attribute const

On 02/08/17 15:41 -0600, Martin Sebor wrote: Hi Honza, While testing improvements to GCC attribute handling I came across the warning below: In file included from /ssd/src/gcc/81544/libstdc++-v3/src/c++98/mt_allocator.cc:31:0: /ssd/build/gcc-81544/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/m

Re: broken link on this page https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-7/changes.html for link to "Profile Mode" page:

On 5 August 2017 at 21:58, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2017, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> Thanks for letting us know, I've fixed the link. > > Thanks, Jonathan. > > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-7.1.0/libstdc++/manua

Re: GCJ wiki page

On 7 August 2017 at 02:29, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Hi, > > The GCJ wiki page https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ appears to be very > obsolete. According to this page, GCJ is part of GCC, but AFAIK, > GCJ has been removed from GCC. Thanks, I've updated the page.

Re: Behaviour of __forced_unwind with noexcept

since GCC 6.1, and many methods including destructors are implicitly > noexcept, using it safely appears to have become a lot more tricky. > > The closest I've found so far to an "authoritative" statement of the > expected behaviour is the comments from Jonathan Wak

Re: Behaviour of __forced_unwind with noexcept

On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 13 August 2017 at 19:20, Ron wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, >>> > >>>

Re: [Bug web/?????] New: Fwd: failure notice: Bugzilla down.

On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: >> >> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I >> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error >> message looks like this: Even if it were possible, the

Re: Behaviour of __forced_unwind with noexcept

On 15 August 2017 at 16:21, Ron wrote: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely >> wrote: >> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener >> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 1

Re: Behaviour of __forced_unwind with noexcept

On 15 August 2017 at 17:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Also currently std::thread runs the supplied function object inside a > noexcept function. With your proposal cancellation would be blocked in > any thread created by a std::thread, i.e. you could only cancel in the > main() thread

Re: Optimizing away deletion of null pointers with g++

On 16 August 2017 at 15:27, Oleg Endo wrote: > On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 13:30 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> I didn't understand why we don't already handle the easy case: >> >> constexpr int* ptr = nullptr; >> delete ptr; >> > > What about overriding the global delete operator with some user defin

Re: Optimizing away deletion of null pointers with g++

On 16 August 2017 at 15:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 16 August 2017 at 15:27, Oleg Endo wrote: >> On Wed, 2017-08-16 at 13:30 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>> >>> I didn't understand why we don't already handle the easy case: >>> >>> const

Re: GCC 7.2 Released

On 17 August 2017 at 06:02, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus) wrote: >> The GNU Compiler Collection version 7.2 has been released. > > Shouldn't the release have a tag on git? > > It doesn't seem to be there: https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=tags > > > git tag gcc-7_2_0-release 1bd23ca8c30f4827c4be

Re: Please support Coroutines TS in C++

See the thread on gcc-help: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2017-08/msg00045.html On 19 August 2017 at 14:09, Ramón García wrote: > ping. > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Ramón García > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Please consider supporting the Coroutines TS in GNU C++. >> >> It is really impo

Re: Segfault generated by gcc-7

On 29 August 2017 at 11:38, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:31:39PM +0200, Marco Varlese wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I got a SEGFAULT in my program when compiling it with gcc-7 but it >> is/was all good when using gcc-6. >> >> The SEGFAULT happens due to the line below: >> d_point = *p; >

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 25 August 2017 at 14:55, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> Hi H.J., >> >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >

Re: Where can I get copyright assignment/disclaimer forms for contribution to gcc ?

On 8 September 2017 at 11:10, lhmouse wrote: > Dear GCC developers, > > I have created a patch for enabling diagnostic colors on Windows. In order to > allow the patch to be integrate with GCC, I need the copyright > assignment/disclaimer forms, according to >

Re: Help out/New to the Project

On 9 September 2017 at 04:27, nick wrote: > Greetings All, > > I am interested in helping out with the gcc project. I understand there is a > bugzilla I can get started on > but is there anything else in terms of things I should be reading outside the > core docs in the git tree > and the docs on

Fwd: [cfarm-admins] Extremely Slow Disk Access On GCC119

Yes, the disks are very slow. You just have to live with it. Obviously migrating gcc119 to Linux would be silly when we have other Linux machines. The whole point of this one is to have an AIX host for testing in AIX. On Sunday, 10 September 2017, R0b0t1 wrote: > > Hello list, has anyone exper

Re: Invalid free in standard library in trivial example with C++17 on gcc 7.2

On 12 September 2017 at 23:58, Dave Gittins wrote: > I confirmed this issue on x86_64 CentOS, and independently here: > https://wandbox.org/permlink/ncWqA9Zu3YEofqri > > Also fails on gcc trunk. > > Possibly related to bug 81338 "stringstream remains empty after being > moved into multiple times"?

Re: Impact of bugs on different versions.

On 21 September 2017 at 12:56, Vicent Brocal wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I am trying to figure out which are the problems affecting a specific > version of GCC (4.4.2) from the information in the bug tracker > (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/). > > So far I have been able to get a list of the bugs r

Re: GCC Buildbot

On 25 September 2017 at 11:13, Paulo Matos wrote: >> Apart from that, I fully agree with octoploid that >> http://toolchain.lug-owl.de/buildbot/ is duplicated effort which is running >> on GCC compile farm machines and uses a shell scripts to utilize. I would >> prefer to integrate it to Buildbot

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote: > Hello, > > I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I > can almost always produce toolchains which function but I can find > programs or scripts which do more or less the same thing that produce > nonfunctional toolchains or

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 27 September 2017 at 05:49, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely > wrote: >> On 26 September 2017 at 22:05, R0b0t1 wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am having problems understanding the build instructions for GCC. I >>

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 3 October 2017 at 22:27, R0b0t1 wrote: > I decline to do your company's market research for them. They could choose > to pay me, of course. Based on the failures I am experiencing I doubt that > your company has gotten the build process entirely correct. Given that you apparently only recently

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 4 October 2017 at 17:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Maybe some of the first steps is to (1) recognize the information > management problem, and (2) provide information dissemination that's > {amicable|consistent|?} with what's occurring in 2017. I mean, What does that mean in concrete terms? > RE

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 4 October 2017 at 17:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 4 October 2017 at 17:14, Jeffrey Walton wrote: >> Maybe some of the first steps is to (1) recognize the information >> management problem, and (2) provide information dissemination that's >> {amicable|consistent|?

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 4 October 2017 at 17:45, Jeffrey Walton wrote: For completeness, GCC has a wiki. But I still don't have an account to make an occasional update; and I still don't know how to get an account. I tried to get one in the past but the process was broken so I gave up. >>> >>> 1) cr

Re: Exhaustive Instructions for Toolchain Generation

On 5 October 2017 at 22:11, Sandra Loosemore wrote: > On 10/05/2017 02:16 PM, R0b0t1 wrote: > >> I find it hard to care about someone's position or affiliation but >> instead choose to care about what they do and how they act. If it was >> Sandra's intent to ask me for free work, then I am not sure

Re: GCC 7 needs temporary for brace-initializing (non-literal-type) member variable?

On 6 October 2017 at 21:51, Titus Von Boxberg wrote: > Or should I file a bug? Or is there already one I could not find? This mailing list is not for "is this a bug?" questions. This looks like a bug, so please create a bug report in Bugzilla, thanks.

Re: GCC Buildbot Update - Definition of regression

On 11 October 2017 at 07:34, Paulo Matos wrote: > When someone adds a new test to the testsuite, isn't it supposed to not > FAIL? Yes, but sometimes it FAILs because the test is using a new feature that only works on some targets, and the new test was missing the right directives to make it UNSUPP

Re: Feature request: -Wno-unknown-warnings to silently ignore unknown warning control flags.

On 12 October 2017 at 09:46, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > Motivation/Use case: > > * Since gcc/g++ intentionally does not have `-Weverything`, there is a > number of explicit `-W...` flags one might wish to specify explicitly. Fair > enough. > > * Additional `-W...` flags are introduced in new gcc/g++ ve

Re: Feature request: -Wno-unknown-warnings to silently ignore unknown warning control flags.

On 12 October 2017 at 19:10, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely> * Additional `-W...` flags > are introduced in new gcc/g++ versions, which >> >> > check for new potential code smells, possibly related to later language >> >

Re: Calling functions through a pointerI

On 12 October 2017 at 18:09, Toshi Morita via gcc wrote: > This isn't a GCC question specifically - it's more of a C language question. And so is off-topic here. > I'm involved in a discussion involving C language function pointers. > The other party claims calling functions through a function p

Re: Questions about a patch fixing bug #61414

On 14 October 2017 at 15:50, Sam van Kampen wrote: > Dear maintainers, > > Having come across https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414 > (bug #61414) quite often myself I decided I wanted to fix it. > > By reading through parts of the GCC internals manual I have > managed to add a warning

Re: Questions about a patch fixing bug #61414

On 14 October 2017 at 17:19, Sam van Kampen via gcc wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 14 October 2017 at 15:50, Sam van Kampen wrote: >> > Dear maintainers, >> > >> > Having come across https://gcc.gnu.org/bugz

Re: Please support Coroutines TS in C++

B() >> { >> b1(); >> when event E2 happends, run C >> } >> >> void C() >> { >> c1() >> } >> >> with Coroutines TS this is turned into >> >> void A() >> { >> a1(); >> co_await E1; >> b1(); >>

Re: Using gnu::unique_ptr to avoid manual cleanups (was Re: [PATCH 2/2] use unique_ptr some)

On 17 October 2017 at 16:23, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 10/17/2017 03:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> Given that we build with -fno-exceptions, what are we guaranteed about >> what happens when "new" fails? (am I right in thinking that a failed >> allocation returns NULL in this case?). Is XNEWVEC

Re: atomic_thread_fence() semantics

On 19 October 2017 at 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote: > Hi. > > I have this code: > > #include > > int ready; > int message; > > void send_x4711(int m) { > message = m*4711; > atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release); > ready = 1; > } > > When I compile it with GCC 7.2 -O3 -std=c11 on

Re: potential bug in libstc++ ?

On 14 November 2017 at 14:35, Sergey Nenakhov wrote: > Hello. > > Excuse me if I'm posting to the wrong mailing list. libstdc++ has its own mailing list (which Richard CC'd). > I've grabbed gcc-7.2.0 > sources and noticed strange statement in the file > gcc-7.2.0\libstdc++-v3\include\bits\locale_

Re: gcc 7.2.0 error: no include path in which to search for stdc-predef.h

N.B. the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list is not for support. For help building or using GCC use the gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org mailing list (see https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html for information on the lists and what's on-topic). On 27 November 2017 at 20:23, Jim Wilson wrote: > On 11/26/2017 11:09 PM, Marek

Re: Nested-Functions

On 3 January 2018 at 21:13, Alexsandr Yvarov wrote: > Why would dont add it at GNU G++? Aren't C++ lambda expressions more powerful and flexible?

Re: Nested-Functions

On 4 January 2018 at 00:44, nick wrote: > > > On 2018-01-03 06:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 3 January 2018 at 21:13, Alexsandr Yvarov wrote: >>> Why would dont add it at GNU G++? >> >> Aren't C++ lambda expressions more powerful and flexible? >>

Re: Nested-Functions

On 4 January 2018 at 00:54, nick wrote: > > > On 2018-01-03 07:52 PM, Austin T wrote: >> By nested functions, I'm assuming that means raw function definitions that >> are valid inside a temporary scope of a function. If I'm not mistaken, >> they're equivalent to C++ lambda expressions but just w

Re: Please support Coroutines TS in C++

On 6 January 2018 at 10:07, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > Related, it looks like C++20 might offer them. Also see That's not decided yet. > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/n4649.pdf. Yes, that's the TS that people are asking to be supported.

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

On 8 January 2018 at 22:07, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:07 PM, Tim van Deurzen wrote: >> I've been spending some time the past few weeks implementing p0515r2, >> i.e. the proposal for consistent comparisons for C++ (aka the spaceship >> operator). > > Great! > >> I've received

Re: Alignas broken when used with constexpr array data member for structure

On 9 January 2018 at 13:15, Alec Teal wrote: > Hi there, > > In GCC 4.8.4 I have something like the following: > > constexpr int x = 5; > > constexpr int y = 4; > > struct alignas(y) my_data_block { > >char data[x]; > > }; > > > And it causes some weird errors to the tune of "size of array ‘da

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

On 9 Jan 2018 10:56 p.m., "Tim van Deurzen" wrote: Just to confirm with you, it does make sense to conditionally parse the token for operator<=> in libcpp (i.e. only when the cxx standard being used is >=2a)? I'm just wondering if this does not accidentally affect other front-ends using libcpp?

Re: Bugzilla admin?

On 10 January 2018 at 14:33, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 02:30:39PM +, Andrew Haley wrote: >> I don't seem to have write access to bugs in GCC Bugzilla. I'm pretty >> sure I used to have it. Who do I contact? Thanks. > > You need to use the @gcc.gnu.org account to have wri

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

t all cleaOn 11 January 2018 at 10:05, David Brown wrote: > Maybe it is easier to say "gcc supports <=> in C++2a, and as an > extension also supports it in C and C++ of any standard" ? I don't > believe there is any way for it to conflict with existing valid code, so > it would do no harm as a gcc

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

On 11 January 2018 at 10:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > t all cleaOn 11 January 2018 at 10:05, David Brown wrote: >> Maybe it is easier to say "gcc supports <=> in C++2a, and as an >> extension also supports it in C and C++ of any standard" ? I don't >> b

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

On 11 January 2018 at 11:28, David Brown wrote: > On 11/01/18 11:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> t all cleaOn 11 January 2018 at 10:05, David Brown wrote: >>> Maybe it is easier to say "gcc supports <=> in C++2a, and as an >>> extension also supports it in

Re: Implementing p0515 - spaceship operator

On 11 January 2018 at 11:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11 January 2018 at 11:28, David Brown wrote: >> On 11/01/18 11:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> t all cleaOn 11 January 2018 at 10:05, David Brown wrote: >>>> Maybe it is easier to say "gcc supports <=>

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 21 January 2018 at 07:12, Jay K wrote: > extern const int foo = 123; > > > > Why does this warn? > This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning > across all compilers, and, importantly, portably > to C and C++. > > I explicitly do not want to say: > > const int foo = 123 > > because I

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 21 January 2018 at 12:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > Jay K schrieb: >> >> extern const int foo = 123; >> >> Why does this warn? >> This is a valid portable form, with the same meaning >> across all compilers, and, importantly, portably >> to C and C++. > > > I also wondered about this. > > In C99

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 25 January 2018 at 12:27, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > On 22.01.2018 16:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 21 January 2018 at 12:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> >>> Jay K schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>> extern const int foo = 123; >&

Re: extern const initialized warns in C

On 25 January 2018 at 12:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25 January 2018 at 12:27, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >> On 22.01.2018 16:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On 21 January 2018 at 12:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>>> >>>> Jay K sc

Re: GCC 7.3 Released

Read the SMTP headers of the email, or go to https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html and follow the instructions there. On 25 January 2018 at 10:48, Vikrant Abbott wrote: > Hi > > I don't know how to unsubscribe to this. > > Thanks. > Vik. > > On 25 Jan 2018 9:48 am, "Richard Biener" wrote: > >> >> The G

Re: GCC 7.3 Released

You've just sent that to hundreds of people who can't unsubscribe you. Read the SMTP headers of the email, or go to https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html and follow the instructions there. On 25 January 2018 at 14:56, Jimmy Shen wrote: > unsubscribe > > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Richard Biener

Re: "svn up" over ssh does not work

On 27 January 2018 at 12:11, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi, > > I am getting > > $ LANG=C svn up > Updating '.': > svn: E170013: Unable to connect to a repository at URL > 'svn+ssh://tkoe...@gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk' > svn: E210002: To better debug SSH connection problems, remove the -q option > from

Re: C program

On 4 February 2018 at 14:34, Rakshitha H wrote: > In my laptop,it shows gcc is not recognized as internal or external command Then you probably need to install it. https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/InstallingGCC

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 5 February 2018 at 09:16, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 05.02.2018 06:06, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 2018-02-04 02:17 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> >>> Printing the suffix is unhelpful because it leads to unnecessary >>> differences in diagnostics (even in non-template contexts). For >>> templat

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 4 February 2018 at 19:17, Martin Sebor wrote: > I think this message would be the most meaningful if the "auto" > part were replaced with the deduced type. With that, the suffix > of the constant isn't important, just as in other contexts. > > I didn't consider the use of auto as a template par

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 5 February 2018 at 17:44, Roman Popov wrote: > Interestingly RTTI name also gives no guarantees: > http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/type_info/name > > << Returns an implementation defined null-terminated character string > containing the name of the type. No guarantees are given; in partic

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 5 February 2018 at 20:10, Roman Popov wrote: > Do you mean that g++ guarantees uniqueness of mangled names for types? And Of course. The mangled name is determined by the ABI and must be stable, predictable and unique, so that linking works. > uses name compare for operator== ? Yes.

Re: GCC 8.0.0 status on x86_64-w64-mingw32, some issues

On 6 February 2018 at 18:03, Rainer Emrich wrote: > At least 20 of the acats tests catch all memory until the host memory is > exhausted. > Same holds for the two libstdc++ tests > 23_containers/unordered_set/requirements/exception/basic.cc > and > 23_containers/unordered_set/requirements/excepti

Re: Copyright Assignment

On 05/02/18 22:01 +0100, Tim van Deurzen wrote: Hi, I've written to this list previously to mention I'm working on implementing p0515 (the spaceship operator) for C++. Although I'm still far from finished I'd like to make sure that when I am, I will be able to contribute my changes to GCC. Pleas

Re: Copyright Assignment

On 07/02/18 12:16 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/02/18 22:01 +0100, Tim van Deurzen wrote: Hi, I've written to this list previously to mention I'm working on implementing p0515 (the spaceship operator) for C++. Although I'm still far from finished I'd like to make su

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 7 February 2018 at 15:07, Manfred wrote: > > > On 02/07/2018 02:44 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >> On 2018-02-07 02:21, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> >>> As the person who, eons ago, wrote a bunch of the the GDB code for this >>> C++ >>> ABI support, and as someone who helped with DWARF support in bot

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 4 February 2018 at 05:01, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-02-03 13:35, Manfred wrote: >> n4659 17.4 (Type equivalence) p1.3: >> >> Two template-ids refer to the same class, function, or variable if >> ... >> their corresponding non-type template arguments of integral or >> enumeration type have id

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 7 February 2018 at 16:36, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-02-07 11:26, Michael Matz wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Simon Marchi wrote: >> >>> This addresses the issue of how to do good software design in GDB to >>> support different producers cleanly, but I think we have some issues >>

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 7 February 2018 at 17:03, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-02-07 11:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> On 7 February 2018 at 16:36, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> >>> On 2018-02-07 11:26, Michael Matz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>&g

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 7 February 2018 at 17:20, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2018-02-07 12:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> >> Why would they not have a mangled name? >> >>> Interesting. What do they look like, and in what context do they appear? >> >> >> Anywhere yo

Re: gcc 7.3: Replacing global operator new/delete in shared libraries

On 7 February 2018 at 23:38, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 02/06/2018 03:56 PM, Paul Smith wrote: >> >> Hi all. >> >> Hopefully this isn't too annoying a question :). >> >> My environment has been using GCC 6.2 (locally compiled) on GNU/Linux >> systems. We use a separate heap management library (jemal

Re: gdb 8.x - g++ 7.x compatibility

On 8 February 2018 at 14:05, Paul Smith wrote: > Isn't the problem with the mangled name, which otherwise would be just > what we wanted since it's easy to match and is unique in just the way > we want it to be, that mangling is not standardized? No, because mangling is standardized: http://itaniu

Re: sign-compare warning for short and char

This question belongs on the gcc-help list really. On 20 February 2018 at 14:44, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > I wonder why -Wsign-compare only warns when there is no int promotion? I suspect the correct-but-not-helpful answer is that after integer promotion the operands have the same type, a

Re: sign-compare warning for short and char

On 20 February 2018 at 15:43, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > I posted here because I saw it as a possible diagnostic bug / limitation. Do > such things go to gcc-help? Or is it that you thought I was asking for the > correct option? Bug reports and enhancement requests go to bugzilla not here,

Re: AW: Problem using gcov

On 26 February 2018 at 14:02, Alexander Fichtinger wrote: > Thanks Martin! > > I've seen that the target milestone for this bug is 8.0. > > When is 8.0 going to be released? The version number 8.0 is used for snapshots from trunk in version control, the actual release will be 8.1, see https://gcc.

Re: Getting into C++ Downloading gcc.

On 4 March 2018 at 02:40, Ray McAllister wrote: > Hi, I'm totally blind. I do most of my programming in BASIC, but I use C++ > now and then, actually, for drawing fractals. I code graphics. I've been > using Dev-C++ because it's the only thing I can find compatible with my > screen reader. I do

Re: Further for GSoC.

On 6 March 2018 at 22:25, Martin Jambor wrote: > You might have figured this out already but just in case something is > not clear: > > 1. How to check out our sources using svn and git is described at > https://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html and https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GitMirror > respectively, a

Re: www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ is gone

On 18 March 2018 at 23:37, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > ...redirecting to a dummy page. Unfortunately there are a fair > number of references in the libstdc++ docs, see below. > > I'll take care of anything outside of libstdc++; can you please > have a look as far as the libstdc++ docs go? > > Gerald

Re: Please improve wording of explanation of a Gfortran extension

CCing the fortran list. On 23 March 2018 at 11:55, Cyril Magnin wrote: > On the page > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/Unary-operators.html#Unary-operators, > we find the following statement: > > 6.1.11 Unary operators >> >> As an extension, GNU Fortran allows unary plus and unary minus o

Re: Which compiler version should we use to compile Cadence Compilers

On 9 April 2018 at 20:29, Rogerio de Souza Moraes wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I goal is to discuss if we should use the compiler available in the build > machine (for example, in RHEL 6.5 it is GCC v4.4.7) or if we should use the > previous version of Cadence GCC (for example v4.8.3). > > Currently

Re: www.sgi.com/tech/stl/ is gone

On 19 March 2018 at 17:12, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 18 March 2018 at 23:37, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> ...redirecting to a dummy page. Unfortunately there are a fair >> number of references in the libstdc++ docs, see below. >> >> I'll take care of anything outs

Re: Request for compiler option to disable multiple declarations in a single statement

On 19 April 2018 at 09:09, Manish Jain wrote: > Hi all, > > One of the historical artefacts of the C language has been the burden of > lugging around multiple declarations in a single statement, with some > well-known pitfalls: > > int* ptr1, ptr2; > > Since ptr2 looks like a pointer but actually i

Re: Request for compiler option to disable multiple declarations in a single statement

Insulting people and insisting your preferred coding style (which is not the one used by GCC's own code, by the way) is definitely a good way to get people interested in your proposal.

Re: bug ? : -Wpedantic -Wconversion 'short a=1; a-=1;' complaint

On 23 April 2018 at 15:11, Jason Vas Dias wrote: > Please can GCC fix this warning bug eventually - I have to wade > through code that generates thousands of them per compilation. gcc@gcc.gnu.org is for discussing development of GCC, not bugs. gcc-b...@gcc.gnu.org is for automated emails generated

[RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

G++ allows the 'main' function to be declared without a return type: $ gcc-8 -x c++ - <<< 'main() { }' :1:6: warning: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘main’ with no type [-Wreturn-type] We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the extension will get warnings even without -Wall

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The warning by default seems sufficient to me. Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes. I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess that's up to the C++

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 14:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 01:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: We enabled -Wreturn-type by default in GCC 8, so code using the extension will get warnings even without -Wall now. Users might want to use -Werror=return-type to ensure they aren't bitten by th

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: The warning by default seems sufficient to me. Yes. We've been bitten by this a few times, with myste

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 12:22 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 16:54 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > On 04/25/2018 02:56

Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

On 25/04/18 13:13 -0400, Nathan Sidwell wrote: On 04/25/2018 12:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: @@ -15869,6 +15851,12 @@ finish_function (bool inline_p)     {   warning (OPT_Wreturn_type,   "no return statement in function returning non-void"); +  if (DECL_NA

"position independent" vs "position-independent" in documentation

Should we standardize on "position-independent" and add it to https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ?

Re: Bug or feature - merging linkage declarations from static forced-inline functions

On 30 April 2018 at 20:02, Freddie Chopin wrote: > Here's a minimal test case: > > -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- >8 -- > > $ cat test.cpp > > extern "C" > { > > void f1() > { > union some_type{ > char a[2]; > int b; > } variable; > } > > void f2() > { > union some

Re: "position independent" vs "position-independent" in documentation

On 30/04/18 22:12 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: On 04/30/2018 05:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Should we standardize on "position-independent" and add it to https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Spelling ? The same generic English usage rules apply here as to other compoun

Re: gcc 8.0.1 RC documentation broken

On 1 May 2018 at 05:42, Andrew Roberts wrote: > I filed this under 'web' as I couldn't see any documentation component. It > doesn't appear to have been looked at, There's a "documentation" keyword instead, but I'm often not sure which component doc bugs should be filed under.

Re: i don't known what is happened

Please don't cross post to all these mailing lists. If you want a bugzilla account then email the account request list, not the other lists. If you want help, email gcc-help, not the other lists. If you want to discuss development of GCC then email the development list, not the other lists. It is

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >