Re: Feature request: Globalize symbol

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James E Wilson) wrote on 10.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 17:48, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > This isn't a source-level modification, by definition. > > And I could argue that my suggestion isn't a source-level modification > either, or I could argue th

Re: Feature request: Globalize symbol

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Henderson) wrote on 11.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 02:48:35AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > > Isn't a compiler option -fglobalize-symbol also a form of source-level > > > instrumentation? Either way, you need the source, and you get d

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Dewar) wrote on 07.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Ronny Peine wrote: > > > Sorry for this, maybe i should sleep :) (It's 2 o'clock here) > > But as i know of 0^0 is defined as 1 in every lecture i had so far. > > Were these math classes, or CS classes. Let's just say t

Re: Merging calls to `abort'

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven Bosscher) wrote on 13.03.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sunday 13 March 2005 02:07, James E Wilson wrote: > > Richard Stallman wrote: > > > Currently, I believe, GCC combines various calls to abort in a single > > > function, because it knows that none of them returns.

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 02.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > While I know a bit of third-wrld, I have also been working in some western > European countries for a sufficiant time to say that, well, far many real > machines used there for work in univeristies and research labs

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > In fact, I've long said that GCC had too many knobs. > > (For example, I just had a discussion with a customer where I explained > that the various optimization passes, while theoretically orthogonal, > are not entirely

Re: Use Bohem's GC for compiler proper in 4.1?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump) wrote on 01.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Friday, April 1, 2005, at 08:48 AM, Stefan Strasser wrote: > > if gcc uses more memory than physically available it spends a _very_ > > long time swapping > > Swapping, what's that? Here's $20, go buy a gigabyte. $2

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Haley) wrote on 30.04.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Matt Thomas writes: > > Joe Buck wrote: > > > I think you need to talk to the binutils people. It should be possible > > > to make ar and ld more memory-efficient. > > > > Even though systems maybe demand paged, ha

Re: volatile semantics

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Sidwell) wrote on 03.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Mike Stump wrote: > > int avail; > > int main() { > > while (*(volatile int *)&avail == 0) > > continue; > > return 0; > > } > > > > > > Ok, so, the question is, should gcc produce code that infinitely loops,

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Barada) wrote on 17.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Its a 266Mhz ColdFire v4e machine, about 263 BogoMips, 1/20 the > BogoMips of my workstation, and with an NFS rootfs, it gets network BogoMips are called BogoMips because they are not comparable among different CPUs.

Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 23.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Zack Weinberg wrote: > > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > [snip stuff addressed elsewhere] > > > >>I agree with the goal of more hiding. > >> > >>You can do this in C by using an incomplete structure ty

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 26.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Paul Koning wrote: > > Scott> Yes, but within the defined mathematical ranges for sine and > > Scott> cosine -- [0, 2 * PI) -- the processor intrinsics are quite > > Scott> accurate. > I *said* that such stateme

Re: Sine and Cosine Accuracy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Henderson) wrote on 26.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:34:14AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > static const double range = PI; // * 2.0; > > static const double incr = PI / 100.0; > > The trig insns fail with large numbers; an arg

Re: GCC 4.1: Buildable on GHz machines only?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Barada) wrote on 21.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Its a 266Mhz ColdFire v4e machine, about 263 BogoMips, 1/20 the > >> BogoMips of my workstation, and with an NFS rootfs, it gets network > > > >BogoMips are called BogoMips because they are not comparable among > >dif

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 28.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Uros Bizjak wrote: > > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. > > In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > impe

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Beebe) wrote on 29.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 29 May 2005 11:37:00 +0200, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 28.05.05 > > > in In my experience, people don't fil

Re: Fixing Bugs

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Wakely) wrote on 16.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 10:30:03AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > > > Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote: > > > Boosters, FreeBSD hackers, and I'm sure tons of others are calling this > > > the "Bicycle shed effect." > > >

Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Florian Weimer) wrote on 18.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > * Paul Schlie: > > > So in effect the standard committee have chosen to allow any program which > > invokes any undefined behavior to behave arbitrarily without diagnosis? > > > > This is a good thing? > > It's the way

Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Dewar) wrote on 18.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Here is an interesting example I have used sometimes to indicate just > how this kind of information can propagate in a manner that would result > in unexpected chaos. (Ada but obvious analogies in other languages) > > >

Re: c/c++ validator

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tommy Vercetti) wrote on 19.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I was looking on different ones, for C, that claimed to have ability to find > security problems. One that I found the best, is splint. But it's still not > able to find such obvious problem: Did you look at sparse? T

Re: basic VRP min/max range overflow question

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Dewar) wrote on 19.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Kai Henningsen wrote: > > > But at least, in that case, the compiler could easily issue the > > (presumably not required by the standard) warning that the else branch is > > "unreac

Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 27.06.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Nathan Sidwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > | > But a compiler could define them to be modulo -- that is the whole > | > point. The paragraph does not say they don't "modulo". > |

Re: volatile semantics

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gabriel Dos Reis) wrote on 17.07.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Sun, 2005-07-17 at 00:05 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > > | > [...] > | > > | > | You make it sound like the s

Re: PR 23046. Folding predicates involving TYPE_MAX_VALUE/TYPE_MIN_VA

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) wrote on 12.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > What has to happen is that we need some sort of way of indicating that it's > not permissible to derive information through a particular conversion. That may be the only practical solution, but it seems to me it's not

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:02 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Does anyone disagree (and if not, have suggestions how to address this > >> in GCC)? > > > > ranlib is basic

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 01.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Pinski) wrote on 31.08.05 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > If you consider Darwin "mo

Re: -fprofile-generate and -fprofile-use

Hi Janis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Janis Johnson) wrote on 01.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [quoteto.xps] > On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:45:35PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > On Thursday 01 September 2005 23:19, girish vaitheeswaran wrote: > > > Sorry I still did not follow. This is what I > > > unde

Re: Running ranlib after installation - okay or not?

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 02.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > > > ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 01.09.05 in > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > a.out archives used to work this

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph S. Myers) wrote on 16.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > C++ requires (A) and provides examples of valid programs where it can be > told whether a normalisation of UCNs is part of the implementation-defined > phase 1 transformation. As I gave in a previous discussion, > >

Re: Warning C vs C++

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Per Abrahamsen) wrote on 19.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Per Abrahamsen wrote: > > > >> The idea was that you would be sure to get all the (boolean) warnings > >> that are relevant for your project, and can give an explicit reas

Re: Warning C vs C++

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (DJ Delorie) wrote on 21.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Incidentally, any time I've done this, I wanted labels on warnings > > as to what option was responsible > > -fdiagnostics-show-option ... as alluded to in the text immediately following the place yu snipped. MfG Kai

Re: Warning C vs C++

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Elliston) wrote on 21.09.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Per Abrahamsen wrote: > > > A -Weverything that turned on all boolean warnings would be nice. It > > would be useless alone, but nice followed by a lot of > > -Wno-somesillywarning -Wno-anothersillywarning arguments. >

Re: Warning on C++ catch by value on non primitive types

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Costa) wrote on 13.10.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 13 Oct 2005, at 7:41 AM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > > > > > > >> yeah, if it were in one of those books it could be added to the - > >> weff-c+ > >> + option. It doesn't seem sensible to add a different option for an >

Re: Porting GCC to RDOS and C++ issues

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Ekblad) wrote on 30.12.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Mike Stump: > > make will build libgcc for the target, specifically, you should be > > able to cd gcc && make libgcc.a to build it. > > It did when I added --host=rdos to the configuration script and > changed a couple of

Re: powerpc-eabi-gcc no implicit FPU usage

Am Samstag, den 16.01.2010, 23:14 + schrieb Paul Brook: > > > > Is there a way to get GCC to only use the FPU when we explicitly want > > > > to use it (i.e. when we use doubles/floats)? Is -msoft-float my only > > > > option here? Is there any sort of #pragma that could do the same > > >

Re: Support for export keyword to use with C++ templates ?

Dodji Seketeli wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 01:47:03AM +0200, Timothy Madden wrote: > >> So nobody here wants to try a big thing ? :( >> > > This question strikes me as being not very fair because many GCC people > are already pretty much involved. Would you fancy giving a hand? > >

Re: gcc 4.4.1/linux 64bit: code crashes with -O3, works with -O2

On 22.02.2010 22:41, Janis Johnson wrote: On Mon, 2010-02-22 at 13:11 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Janis Johnson wrote: If you can reproduce the problem with a small, self-contained test then please file a bug report. It might be possible to issue a warning or

Re: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:42:17 +0100 "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55: > > God no. Think of the maintenance nightmare. > > You're not the first person to come up with this idea, and you > probably won't be the last, but it's a misbegotten i

Re: build system: gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp and NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:24:22 + (UTC) "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > > > Thomas Schwinge dixit: > > > > >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in > > >glibc) should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's

Re: [lto][RFC] Do not emit hybrid object files

Am Fri, 17 Oct 2008 14:01:35 -0600 schrieb Jeff Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Diego Novillo wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 15:40, Ollie Wild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Diego Novillo > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> lto1 (even if -flto is not pro

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2008-11-27)

Am Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:30:44 + (UTC) schrieb "Joseph S. Myers" : > There are a total of 5150 open bugs in Bugzilla, counting both > regressions and non-regressions. It seems quite likely that many of > the older bugs have in fact been fixed since they were filed, but we > don't have any good

Re: Plugin API Comments (was Re: GCC Plug-in Framework ready to port)

On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 04:06, Sean Callanan wrote: > We also have a magic argument called FILE that lets you load arguments from > a file. That's what @ arguments are for. Which argues for not concatenating arguments. Would it be a problem to do -plugin=myplugin -plugin-myplugin-arg1=stuff -pl

Re: messaging

Arthur Schwarz schrieb: In the following code fragment: # include # include # include using namespace std; void CommandLine(int argc, char** argv); int main(int argc, char** argv) { CommandLine(argc, argv[]); ifstream x.open(argv[1], ios:in); ofstream y.open(argv[1], ios::in);

Re: messaging

aschwarz1...@verizon.net schrieb: Thanks Kai. I do have what I hope is a more specific subjective reason for saying that I think the existing diagnostics should be changed. Fundamentally, what is provided in the messaging is not an indication of what is wrong, but an indication of what is requ

Re: 4.3 weekly snapshots bot broken?

Joseph S. Myers schrieb: If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of individual snapshots or other individual jobs run from cron, you should follow the gccadmin and overseers lists, where you would have seen the message showing the breakage and the subsequent discussion of

Re: RTL alias analysis

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 20.01.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > When dealing with unions, you can take pointers to different fields in > the unions. If the fields have different types, these pointers can > have non-conflicting alias sets. Therefore within a single union the > same m

Re: RTL alias analysis

ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) wrote on 21.01.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think he's saying that _this_ one might generate invalid code: > > > > void test(void) > > { > > union { int i; double d; } u; > > int *ip; > > dou

Re: Eliminate CHAR_TYPE from config/sh/sh.h

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Sayle) wrote on 09.02.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Kaz Kojima wrote: > > Here is a patch to remove CHAR_TYPE from config/sh/sh.h. > > My apologies to the SH folks. I did check the entire tree with > find . -type f -exec grep CHAR_TYPE {} \; -print, bu

Re: "Experimental" features in releases

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Berlin) wrote on 18.04.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This is in fact, not terribly surprising, since the algorithm used was the > result of Sebastian and I sitting at my whiteboard for 30 minutes trying to > figure out what we'd need to do to make swim happy :). > This w

Re: Summer of Code project discussion

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Mitchell) wrote on 03.05.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > To make this work, we have to be careful not to generate as much garbage > as we presently do, as we'll needlessly waste space in these pools. > Right now, we're using GC partly to compensate for things like using > tre

Re: SVN: Checksum mismatch problem

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russ Allbery) wrote on 22.05.06 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I do that also, but I am also careful to prune repository > > directories (CVS, .svn or SCCS even). I rather doubt it is my RAM, > > BTW. Perhaps a disk sector, but I'll nev

Re: Details for svn test repository

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Schlie) wrote on 11.02.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > - I apparently misinterpreted: > > http://svn.collab.net/viewcvs/svn/trunk/ > > as was viewing it via viewcvs (which I now understand is svn friendly) In general, these days, /viewcvs/cvs/... will access a CVS reposi

Re: LC_COLLATE (was Re: SVN Test Repo updated)

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paolo Bonzini) wrote on 17.02.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > The sort alghorithm has nothing to do with ls, but with your selection of > > LC_COLLATE. But then, BSD (at least the variant used in MacOSX) is way > > behind current l10n standards. > > At least they do not break s

Re: RFC: objc_msgSend efficiency patch

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Johannesen) wrote on 21.02.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Simple Objective C programs such as > > #include > void foo(void) { >Object *o; >[o++ free]; > } > > result in calling objc_msgSend indirectly through a pointer, instead > of directly as they did in 3.3. Thi

Re: Memory leaks in compiler

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:46:12PM -, Dave Korn wrote: > On 16 January 2008 22:09, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > On 1/16/08 4:16 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >> Because it's not a bug? You're changing the code to silence a false > >> negative, which this is what we here in England call "puttin

Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals

On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 07:28:23PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > You can't cross-test, with DejaGnu running elsewhere? > > I've tried. The problem is communication between the DOS system (or > emulator) and the host system. DOS isn't kind to networking, > semaphores, or anything else that hint

Re: Defining a common plugin machinery

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 15:30, Brian Dessent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Is it really that far fetched to have the plugin not directly access > anything from the executable's symbol table but instead be passed a > structure that contains a defined set of interfaces and ca

Re: no symbol in current context problem when debug the program in gdb

Please don't crosspost between gcc and gcc-help. Thanks. On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:48, Peng Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Peng Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have the following program. When I step in to test's constructor, I >> would be able to

Can CODE_FOR_$(div$V$I$a3$) ever match?

This is genopinit.c:92 (sdivv_optab) (in revision 127595). I read this as "the next mode must be a full integer mode; add a v if it is a float mode". Which is doubly strange as this is the only place where $V is used. Am I missing something here, or is this a bug?

Re: [wwwdocs] PATCH Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 02:04:21PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> I don't have access to the POSIX standard itself > > See . > > Now added to our "Links and Selected Readings" page; thanks for th

Re: Designs for better debug info in GCC

On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:38:31AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > Would reformatting these and stamping a title on top make it worthy of > your interest? Actually, I think that *would* help (though, of course, it's impossible to predict if it would help *enough*). I've noticed before (though th