On Fri, Apr 13, 2007 at 05:38:03AM -0400, Ken Takusagawa wrote:
> What's going on here? I'm expecting the answer 0, but get 2.
>
> #include
> int main(){
> unsigned x=1;
> printf("%u\n",(x<<33));
> /* outputs "2" on gcc 4.1.2 on x86_32 */
>
> /*
>[#4] The result of E1 << E2 is E1 l
Btw,
We still see some critical 4.0 problems, ordered by my view of
importance:
PR/20126 triggers a miscompilation of python (i386 and x86_64 at least).
PR/20917 triggers a miscompilation of glibc (on s390).
PR/20739 triggers a --enable-checking problem triggering in ncurses (all
platforms)
PR/
Hi,
addition of alloc_size attribute to the changes.html.
Ciao, Marcus
Index: htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.3/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -r1.57 changes.html
--- htdocs/gc
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 06:28:52PM +0200, Marcus Meissner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> addition of alloc_size attribute to the changes.html.
>
> Ciao, Marcus
Less plugging of examples as suggested by Dirk...
Index: htdocs/gcc-4
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:54:17AM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> >Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> >
> >>One way to view it: the license is a feature. Therefore changing the
> >>license is changing a feature. Therefore what was going to be 4.2.2
> >>should become 4.3.0.
> >
>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:40:06PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> The thread arguing about this has gone on for a while, so I think
> it's time to gather some data to answer the question of just how bad
> it will be if we accept the decision to move ext/hash_set and ext_hash_map
> into a different direct
