NightStrike writes:
> It's not just present on "social community" sites. Look at the
> entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
> software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please
> understand what I mean by that.) It's even a place where projects get
NightStrike writes:
> I presented what I would need - access to the current code, as well as
> the database.
So as I understand it, you can access the code, right? There is of
course nothing confidential in the bugs database. I have put a copy
created by mysqldump at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc
NightStrike writes:
> Maybe there's a way to look at how other projects handle the same
> issue, and find a different solution that's more workable for more
> people. I don't know what event you are specifically referring to in
> the GCC history that created this situation, but I don't think it'
Jonathan Corbet writes:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:39:11 -0700
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I am doing what I can. However, looking at other projects doesn't help
>> very much because most other projects simply don't worry about these
>> issues. That is,
in and
> out arguments.
That's correct. You need to figure out how to make that not happen.
(That was the actually the goal of my suggestion, although I didn't say
it, and I guess it was not helpful in any case.)
Ian
> 2010/6/23, Ian Lance Taylor :
>> roy rosen writes:
>>
&g
Joern Rennecke writes:
> So, back to the original question. Is this a suitable bootstrap substitute
> for testing patches?
I think it can be. You have to use good judgment, of course. I know
you know this, but if the patch is going to change the generated code on
a specific target, then a boo
ad...@icybersurfer.com writes:
> I heard of GCC complier and that its a major complier for Playstation
> systems.
>
> As Nintendo has Wii, and Xbox 360 is coming out with Kinect, Playstation
> is coming up with Playstation Move. My question is, can I comply a game
> with GCC to be compatible with
Jérémie Salvucci writes:
> I am trying to get an access to local variables of a function thanks
> to the GIMPLE representation. When I read the dump file after the CFG
> pass, I can see a new temporary variable added. For example with the
> identity function I would like to get an access to the u
Sean Hunt writes:
> void foo () __attribute__((noreturn)); // right per spec
> void foo __attribute__((noreturn)) (); // works
> __attribute__((noreturn)) void foo (); // works
>
> It's obvious that the first example of each kind (noreturn appearing
> after the function declarator) mu
Maxiwell Garcia writes:
> I am writing a paper about instruction-set architecture simulators. In
> first time, I used gcc-4.4.0 and the compilation time reached 33
> minutes (with -O3) for my simulator and the performance reached 270
> MIPS (Million instruction per second). When I used the gcc-4.
John Smith writes:
> Im working on a C source level debugger. The debug info available in elf
> format. How could be 'step over' implemented?
> The problem is at 'Point1', anyway I can wait for the
> next source line (reading it from the .debug_line table).
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ...
> if (a == 1)
> x
Sean Hunt writes:
> On 07/10/2010 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Sean Hunt writes:
>>
>>> void foo () __attribute__((noreturn)); // right per spec
>>> void foo __attribute__((noreturn)) (); // works
>>> __attribute__((noreturn))
"Darryl L. Miles" writes:
> So my next question is what support is there in the various formats,
> technologies and runtime libraries to provide a backwards compatible
> solution, such that a binary from one system when put on another can
> have any hardware incompatibilities detected at the soon
BLUE 3TOO writes:
> Can somebody quickly explain what the bit fields are for? thanks
>
> unsigned int precision : 10;
> unsigned no_force_blk_flag : 1;
> unsigned needs_constructing_flag : 1;
> unsigned transparent_aggr_flag : 1;
> unsigned restrict_flag : 1;
> unsigned contain
Rainer Orth writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>
>> Unfortunately, as far as I know, no such solution was ever adopted for
>> the x86 family. So this does not help your immediate problem, and will
>> not help it until somebody implements such an approach for x86.
>
Eric Fisher writes:
> It will be appreciated if anyone could help send me the copyright
> assignment forms. I need them to submit patches to gcc. I think it
> should be an assignment for all future changes.
Sent offlist.
Ian
Rick Hodgin writes:
> To my knowledge, GCC does not currently support any edit-and-continue
> abilities. Is this still true? And if so, are there any plans to introduce
> it at some point?
I don't see how it makes sense to add edit-and-continue to gcc.
Compilation times are too slow, but the
Rick Hodgin writes:
> The idea is to create a program database of the compiled program on a
> full compile. Then when asked to re-compile with the edit-and-continue
> switch, it only looks for changed code and compiles those few
> lines. Everything else it needs to carry out compilation is there
Jay K writes:
> I get this in 4.3.5:
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c: In function `const_rtx_hash_1':
> ../../gcc/gcc/varasm.c:3387: warning: right shift count >= width of type
>
> ./include/hashtab.h:typedef unsigned int hashval_t;
>
> unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT hwi;
> hashval_t h, *hp;
> ...
>
"Amker.Cheng" writes:
> I found although there are standard pattern names such as "ceilm2/floorm2",
> there is no insn pattern in mips.md for such float insns on mips target.
> further more, there is no ceil/floor rtl code in rtl.def either.
>
> based on these facts, I assuming those float insn
redriver jiang writes:
> I am porting GCC to a 8bit architecture, and now I have problem on
> reload problem on addressing mode.
> Besides 15 general registers, it has three 16bit address registers,
> R16,R17,R18.
> R16,R17,R18 are able to be as base register in "base" address mode,
> but only R1
redriver jiang writes:
> Hi,
>
> You mean I should define insn like this:
>
> (define_insn "*iorqi3_imm"
> [(set (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "b"))
>(ior:QI (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "b")
> (mem:QI (plus: HI (match_opera
Mark Mitchell writes:
> I believe that the only real fix here is (a) for the FSF to abandon the
> GFDL, and relicense manuals under the GPL, or (b) for the FSF to add an
> exception to the GFDL, making it compatible with the GPL in some way.
> However, I have no evidence that the FSF is consideri
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I am interested to attend GCC summit this year, but it doesn't seem
> to happen, does it?
It is reportedly being held in the last week of October this year.
Ian
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Do you think we should just ask the FSF to dual-license all of GCC?
Sure, it might at least be worth finding out whether they think there is
any problem with that.
Ian
redriver jiang writes:
> But the constrains are really long.
Well, yeah.
> I use "U" for memory operands with address "R18+offset", and "S" for
> memory operands with address "R16" or "R17", and "Q" for memory
> operands with constant address(such as symbol ref, or const_int), the
> all combina
DJ Delorie writes:
> JUMP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
> LABEL_ALIGN_AFTER_BARRIER_MAX_SKIP
> LOOP_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
> LABEL_ALIGN_MAX_SKIP
>
> None of these macros take any parameters, but for optimal performance
> on RX, it's key to match the max_skip with the size of the following
> opcode - there's a pena
"Alfred M. Szmidt" writes:
> Please move such unconstructive arguments elsewhere.
Wait. Steven's comment was on the snarky side, but coming from a
long-time gcc contributor I don't think it was over the line or even
near it. I think he was expressing a perfectly valid point of view
considering
Mihai Donțu writes:
> Is there a page somewhere which details the list of changes made to gcc for
> every release? I don't seem to be able to find it anywhere on gcc.gnu.org.
> I'm
> not referring to things like http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html but
> something more like:
> http://www.k
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
> why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
-masm=intel
This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
list.
Ian
Steven Bosscher writes:
> It seems that there once was support for builtin functions defined by
> a front end. This is still a useful idea (see e.g. PR24777) but it
> looks like there are no frontend built-in functions anymore. At least,
> a grep for BUILT_IN_FRONTEND gives no meaningful results.
Steven Bosscher writes:
> Assertions in libcpp have been deprecated since r135264:
>
> 2008-05-13 Tom Tromey
>
> PR preprocessor/22168:
> * expr.c (eval_token): Warn for use of assertions.
>
> Can this feature be removed for GCC 4.6?
It was officially deprecated in the 4.4 rel
Uros Bizjak writes:
> A problem arises with the code in testsuite/g++.dg/cpp0x/rv[1..8]p.C.
> These tests use "sizeof(..character array...) == ", but sizeof char
> array depends heavily on the value of #define STRUCTURE_SIZE_BOUNDARY.
> Targets that define this value to i.e. 32 (for performance r
Justin Mattock writes:
> I seem to be stuck with this error(below) when building nss
>
> ../dist/public/dbm pkix_pl_ldaptemplates.c
> {standard input}: Assembler messages:
> {standard input}:954: Error: junk at end of line, first unrecognized
> character is `6'
> {standard input}:954: Error: jun
James Dennett writes:
> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> right list)?
I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list.
Ian
"Petar Jovanovic" writes:
> the company I work for, RT-RK, http://www.rt-rk.com, intends to contribute
> some optimization patches to GCC for MIPS32. These optimization patches have
> been developed in cooperation with MIPS Technologies, and we have been
> advised by them to contact you in order
"H.J. Lu" writes:
> Sometime I have to do
>
> int x = 0;
>
> to silence gcc from uninitialized warnings when I know it is
> unnecessary. Is that a good idea to add
>
> int x __attribute__ ((uninitialized));
>
> to tell compiler that it is OK for "x" to be uninitialized?
I think the general idea
"Kilbane, Stephen" writes:
> I'm trying to add support to 4.3 for cache flushing when setting up a
> trampoline.
> Reading around, it looks like I should be defining CLEAR_INSN_CACHE:
>
> To clear the instruction cache when a trampoline is initialized, define the
> following macro.
>CLEAR_I
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> Libtool recently added a configure test for @file support in ar
> (and other tools) in order to avoid the slower partial building
> or static libraries on some systems (and have an escape route on
> systems where the archiver doesn't allow adding to an archive).
>
> Now,
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> However, if I have register constraints that define constraint x to
> match a certain register class X and I define predicate:
> (define_predicate "x_operand"
> (and (match_operand 0 "register_operand")
> (match_test "REGNO_REG_CLASS(REGNO(op)) == X")))
writes:
> We are getting the following errors, this happened when we moved from a
> legacy system where everything worked to a newer system. The compiler
> was reinstalled on the newer system and all files were copied. Any help
> will be appreciated.
>
> Qsms using gcc compiler
> QSMS COMPILER -
Mohamed Shafi writes:
> I want to know if it is good to have both sign and zero extension for
> 16bit immediate.
Hard to say. It really depends on the kind of constants you expect your
programs to use. It's generally a good idea to have an efficient way to
load small constants which many progr
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> In a rule like
> (set (match_operand 0 ...)
> (match_operand 1 ...))
>
> I sometimes have operand0 equal to operand1, as in
> rtx_equal_p(operand[0], operand[1]) == 1.
> This generates a move between the same location (same as a nop).
>
> Is there a reason for
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I came across an issue regarding named section and nobits. In
> the following example, I expected the c is placed is placed
> in a section named .smemdata and nobits is set for the section
> since "c" is initialized to zeros.
>
> int a = 0;
>
> int b = 2000 * 512;
> sta
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> * what is a sequence of related small patches? Is it an ordered set of
> patches to apply in succession? By what exact set of commands (assuming
> a GNU/Linux system). Does a latter patch in that sequence apply to the
> trunk, or to the trunk updated by previous pa
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:19 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> > However, our patch also added some improvements to gengtype itself
>>
>> Improvements are desirable, but if it is all possible you should
>> separate these im
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 12:23 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 08/24/2010 07:38 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>> > (actually, this happened to us before e.g.
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg02178.html etc).
>>
>> Sorry, but that's what happens w
Matt Davis writes:
> I am just trying to settle down on my PhD Computer Science dissertation
> topic. I want something low-level, compiler related, and more so
> useful/practical. I am considering region-based memory management, to show
> memory efficiency and safety. For imperative languages,
jeremie.salvu...@free.fr writes:
> While hacking on gengtype with Basile, we noticed a strange piece of code at
> line 2539 in gcc/gengtype.c r162692
>
> static void
> output_type_enum (outf_p of, type_p s)
> {
> if (s->kind == TYPE_PARAM_STRUCT && s->u.s.line.file != NULL) /* Strange
> code @
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> In the first case, it generates a binary tree, and in the second two
> jump tables. The jump tables solution is much more elegant (at least
> in our situation), generating less code and being faster.
> Now, what I am wondering is the reason why GCC doesn't try to cluste
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> My impression is that s->u.s.line.file usually happens to have the same
> offset (at least on GNU/Linux/AMD64=x86_64) as
> s->u.param_struct.param[0] and that for every type concerned by
> output_type_enum its param[0] subfield happens to be non-null. This
> explai
Luís Vitório Cargnini writes:
> I'm Vitorio working in Leon due to my Ph.D. and discussing with Konrad Eisele
> form Aeroflex Gaisler, maintainers of Leon SPARC, we would like to create a
> main tree for Leon on GCC, and providing the commits we already have, and any
> further modifications, r
Jeremiah Willcock writes:
> When compiling a program such as:
>
> template
> void foo(T, typename T::type c) {c.y();}
> struct x {typedef int type;};
> void f() {foo(x(), 3);}
>
> GCC 4.5.0 (correctly) produces the error message:
>
> foo.cpp: In function ‘void foo(T, typename T::type) [with T =
Eric Botcazou writes:
> Ian, would you mind sending them the appropriate form? Thanks in advance.
Done.
Ian
Georg Lay writes:
> Moreover, there will be a problem because the C function that actually
> implements my_record_switches must return a string starting with '-',
> there is no way to return "" or NULL to indicate that the function won't
> produce anything.
I would consider writing something lik
DJ Delorie writes:
> But in reality, the only thing -Os does beyond -O2, aside from a few
> niche special cases, is enable inlining, and maybe scheduling, which
> for some cases may be the wrong thing to do.
Some backends also check optimize_size to change their cost algorithms
to favor shorter
Jay K writes:
> That uses process boundaries to avoid GPL crossing into BSDish licensed code.
> So maybe you don't want to help me. Understood.
Note that different people have different opinions as to whether a
process boundary means that your code is not a derived work. Not that
we should get
tbp writes:
> Since about 2010/09/07 i've had a weird error with a mismatched
> prototype involving an argument once forward declared as 'class foo;'
> and later defined as 'class __attribute((aligned(16))) foo {...};', a
> bit like
> namespace n1 {
> class fwd;
> namespace n2 {
> class
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
>> ,
>> | int f(int n)
>> | {
>> | switch(n)
>> | {
>> | case 0: f1("0"); break;
>> | case 500: f2("500"); break;
>>
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
I don't think so I used to use it in lower-subreg.c befo
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
Although of course lower-subreg.c is RTL, so never mind. Sorry.
Ian
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I don't
> see yet how GCC developers can consider either more beneficial than
> the other.
It seems to me that at the present moment LLVM
"Bingfeng Mei" writes:
> I am experimenting some cond_exec patterns to better support
> predicate in our target. I came across the following optimization
> done in cse1, and not sure if it is correct behaviour or my fault.
> Basically, cse1 performs copy propagation for insn 12 and 16 based
> on
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> On 13 September 2010 22:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>>
>>> From a user-perspective, there are benefits on both clang->gcc and
>>> gcc->llvm. However, from what I know about the GCC project, I d
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> By that rule, it is clearly beneficial for some gcc users to compile
> Fortran using dragon-egg to take advantage of OpenCL. Ergo, dragon-egg
> is beneficial to GCC.
That's pretty special purpose, though. Not something I would personally
recommend that gcc develope
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> In the same sense that adding clang->gcc means that there is less
> motivation for developers to improve the current C/C++ FEs.
From the perspective of gcc, I think the goal of clang->gcc would be to
replace the current frontends entirely.
Ian
tbp writes:
> Would it be possible to have some clarifications? Shall i file a PR
> for a warning? Sacrifice a goat?
Please do file a PR if there isn't one already. Thanks.
Ian
tbp writes:
> I could really use -Wdouble-promotion but, atm, it appears quite impractical,
> $ cat double.cc
> #include
> void foo(...);
> int main() {
> float f = 1;
> foo(f);
> printf("%f", f);
> }
> $ /usr/local/gcc-4.6-20100913/bin/g++ -Wdouble-promotion double.cc
> double
tbp writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> This question is not appropriate for the mailing list g...@gcc.gnu.org.
>> ...
>> This is among the kinds of things which -Wdouble-promotion is documented
>> to warn about, so, yes, t
Godmar Back writes:
> this may be a FAQ - in my class today when discussing how gcc
> generates code for x86, I was stumped when I showed an example of how
> gcc handles attempts to modify (read-only) string literals/constants.
> (I'm sending this to gcc rather than gcc-help because I'm asking fo
tbp writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> What is it that you want?
> I'd like to have a warning for when a value of type float is
> implicitly promoted to double, for performance reasons (on x86).
Let me put it a different way: what
tbp writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Let me put it a different way: what is it that you want, expressed in
>> terms of C/C++ code? What should the compiler be warning about?
> Hmm. I think the provided example captures most of what i car
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Uday P. Khedker wrote:
>> Attached please find two dumps t.c.032t.mergephi1 and t.c.033t.cddce1.
>> The assignment is present in the former while it disappears in the
>> latter. The latter dump is the output of the dead code elimination
>
David Weiser writes:
> I am looking at bug number 99 on
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99 and I am adding a test
> case for it.
> The testcase looks like this:
> //---start test case
> /*
> {do-run compile}
> */
This should be
/* { dg-do compile } */
or, equivalently fo
fanqifei writes:
> I am porting gcc to a microprocessor. There are no 64bits instructions
> in it. I added a small logical shift right optimization to the md
> file(see below).
> For the statement “k>>32” in which k is 64bits integer, the
> “define_expand” should fail because op2 is 32, not 1.
>
Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
We will be taking bugzilla offline on Friday, September 17, for three
hours starting at 18:00GMT, 11:00PDT to do a final database upgrade and
conversion to
David Daney writes:
> A quick question: What will happen to svn commits tagged with bug
> numbers during this outage? Will bugzilla eventually end up with the
> commit comments we have all come to know and love?
That is the plan, yes.
Ian
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
> group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
> We will be taking bugzilla offline on Friday, September 17, for three
> hours
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> I would like some clarification on the meaning of RTX Costs.
> When optimising for speed I assume they estimate the time at which the
> final generated code is going to take to execute for each rtx.
> When optimising for size it is the estimated number
We're ready for another try.
Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
We will be taking bugzilla offline on Thursday, September 23, for three
hours starting at 18:00GMT, 11:00PDT to do a final dat
Resending with correct subject line.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> We're ready for another try.
>
> Thanks to sterling work by Frédéric Buclin, the gcc.gnu.org overseers
> group is preparing to upgrade gcc.gnu.org bugzilla to a current version.
&g
Diego Novillo writes:
> I'd suggest sending one initial patch fixing indentation issues and
> then sending your functional changes on top of the first patch.
Yes.
Basile, I'm sorry you have to struggle with some poor existing
indentation in gengtype.c, but the GNU style indentation is not all t
pocma...@gmail.com (Paulo J. Matos) writes:
> So, from what I understand, it seems that if there is machine
> independent code using COSTS_N_INSNS, I should be using it otherwise
> relative comparisons just don't make sense.
>
> However, from what I can see we have cost hooks for:
> - register mov
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 09/23/2010 08:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Diego Novillo writes:
>>
>>> I'd suggest sending one initial patch fixing indentation issues and
>>> then sending your functional changes on top of the first patch.
>>
>>
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> Thank you, Frédéric, despite a few bug reports the upgrade went very
> smoothly and it's great that we have a modern version of Bugzilla now.
>
> Was it a conscious decision for the "Add me to CC list" checkbox to be
> ticked by default? It means that I get added to the
J Decker writes:
> Can the severity of signed/unsigned comparisons be raised, since GCC
> does not properly handle the comparisons.
GCC properly handles the comparisons according to the rules laid down in
the C/C++ language standards.
> int main()
>
> {
> int s = -2;
> unsigned int
DJ Delorie writes:
> In this example, why isn't insn 117 scheduled before insn 115 ? What
> is the dependency? The only thing they have in common is CC, but both
> generate a value which is never used.
I don't see anything in sched-deps.c which prevents using a register for
scheduling dependen
Jack Howarth writes:
> Does the new split stack feature in gcc trunk absolutely require additional
> libc support to function or can it be made to work on other targets like
> darwin with just changes to libgcc? Thanks in advance for any
> clarifications.
The additional support that it needs i
IainS writes:
> On 28 Sep 2010, at 17:29, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>>> Does the new split stack feature in gcc trunk absolutely require
>>> additional
>>> libc support to function or can it be made to work on other tar
Gary Funck writes:
> Recently, I ran into a couple of bugs/regessions that show up
> only if checking is enabled. This led me to the observation that
> it might be useful if checking can be enabled at runtime via a
> gcc command line switch. If this capability can be enabled by
> default, then
Uwe Kleine-König writes:
> in the linux kernel I defined a function as follows:
>
> static struct platform_device *__init __maybe_unused
> imx_add_imx_dma(void)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> and the only used was #ifdefed out.
>
> With the following defines:
>
> #define
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> While doing relocation work on u-boot I often whish for strings/const data
> to be accessible through %pc relative address rather than and ABS address
> or through GOT. Has this feature ever been considered by gcc?
The feature can only be supported on processors which
e wrong?
It's a problem with using a condition in autoconf. The AC_REQUIRE
system that autoconf uses fails when some tests are run in conditions.
This patch fixes it. Build maintainers: is the right approach, or is
there a better one?
Ian
2010-10-05 Ian Lance Taylor
* configure.
Joakim Tjernlund writes:
> I really wish mrelocatable is added to all archs. The normal ELF relocs
> are too big to fit well in u-boot.
Every architecture is different and requires a thoughtful approach to
determine the best way to handle these issues for that architecture.
Also, since every ar
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> Can we svn commit a patch after having compiled with a comment (like
> those of Laurynas) without an Ok from a reviewer? (I believe not, but I
> am thinking that some patches went into trunk without an ok on
> gcc-patches@).
You do need to have an OK from somebody
Gary Funck writes:
> Consider the following:
>
> $ cat -n t.c
> 1
> 2 int A[10] = { 0 };
> 3
> 4 int main()
> 5 {
> 6A[10] = 10;
> 7A[-1] = -1;
> 8return 0;
> 9 }
>
> In a compiler test case that I reviewed recently, there was the
> exp
Gary Funck writes:
>> There was an attempt a couple of years ago to implement this warning
>> when not optimizing [...].
>
> Would it be possible to compute enough of the control flow graph
> to process warnings like this one, without running the
> actual optimizations, unless those optimizations
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> Howeer, I see a logic in needing -O2 to get some warnings.
> Optimizations are expensive, and they compute static properties of the
> source code, which are usable (& necessary and used) for additional
> warnings.
The problem that I think we've discovered over the
Gary Funck writes:
> 2) Expensive warnings (-Wall, -Warray-bounds, -Wuninitialized, -Wunused)
> [not sure about the actual list] that require optimizations, will issue
> a Warning when they are requested, but the appropriate optimization level
> has not been asserted, that is required for those w
Gary Funck writes:
> On 10/08/10 13:22:46, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> I think both of those alternatives would be surprising and easily
>> misunderstood behaviour for many compiler users. [...]
>
> I find the following behavior to be surprising:
>
> $ gcc -Warra
1801 - 1900 of 3176 matches
Mail list logo
