On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
That doesn't sound right. It see flex being run every time I create a
new object directory, even though I don't modify the flex input files.
Sounds like a bug. I did a quick check with a contrib/gcc_update --
touch and a c,treelang build
On Jan 23, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
That's just about a quarter million lines of code to process and you
think the infrastructure around it isn't crap on the order of 100?
Standard answer, trivially, it is as good as you want it to be. If
you wanted it to be better, you'd co
On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
This argument fails (trivially) on the assumption that there is an
incremental way ("fixes") to improve it in time not exceeding the
expected remaining life span of a developer.
I welcome your existence proof for just one piece that can't b
On Jan 24, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
One thing that would certainly help as a foundation for possible
further improvement in performance in this area would be to have
xgcc contain all the front ends directly linked into it.
That does seem debatable.
It could be a starting poin
On Jan 24, 2007, at 2:19 PM, meltem wrote:
I'm learning MIPS in course so i want to exercise with some MIPS code
so i will write my codes in c and translate it into MIPS assembly
and then i
will check it with my hand write assembly code.. i don't have linux
in my machine but i have cygwin and
On Jan 25, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Jason Erickson wrote:
I'm working on a project where every so often one of our games comes
back and we pull the ram off the game for saving, and sometimes for
anaylisis. Currently the only varibles in ram that we can physically
look at are the static members. The in
On Jan 26, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Andreas Bogk wrote:
they might get what they deserve. Microsoft has suffered from
security problems for so long that they have put an immense effort
into Vista to fix it. I'm not saying it will be bug-free, but it
will be significantly harder to actually find a
On Jan 26, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Ray Hurst wrote:
I have a code that is compiled in C and I need to link in C++
object files. I need to know if C++ object files created with a C++
compiler can be linked with C object files created with the C
compiler.
Wrong list, you want help gcc-help is clos
I've been seeing:
/Volumes/mrs5/net/gcc-darwin/./gcc/xgcc -shared-libgcc -B/
Volumes/mrs5/net/gcc-darwin/./gcc -nostdinc++ -L/Volumes/mrs5/net/gcc-
darwin/i686-apple-darwin9/libstdc++-v3/src -L/Volumes/mrs5/net/gcc-
darwin/i686-apple-darwin9/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs -B/usr/local/i686-
a
On Feb 2, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
This was removed from the libstdc++ sources erroneously, and I just
re-added it.
Thanks, it works now.
On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Prabhanjan Kambadur wrote:
I am trying to check if two types are equal
equal, what's that? :-) (That's a joke for the rest of the folks
here. See the CANONICAL types work that Doug did recently for some
of the more recent email threads.)
One of the types is
On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:05 PM, Prabhanjan Kambadur wrote:
I am new to this list, so please excuse any obvious mistakes. I am
trying to check if two types are equal or one is derived from the
other within the compiler. One of the types is a struct that is
defined under the std namescope. How do I sea
On Feb 11, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I am coding an extension for GCC and am having some difficulty with
pre-compiled headers. I dont know if my understanding of how they
work is completely correct and so my code is getting a segfault.
You _must_ have clean data structures and c
On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:54 PM, Jiahua He wrote:
Oh, I see. For reduction and induction, you don't need to deal with
the condition with vdef. I am considering how to implement an idiom
with vdef, like SCAN (prefix sum). And by the way, do you support
idioms with vuses?
Jiahua
2007/2/12, Dorit Nu
On Feb 13, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
Sorry for the long email
Complex questions are better long, as that allows for better answers,
which should be more useful to you.
This was based on an idea from Mike in Nov 2006 when i needed to
ensure that the FUNCTION_DECL nodes were
On Feb 13, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
There is no "additional" pain in doing this as I have already
developed my code using manual malloc/free in such a way that i am
reasonably sure there are no leaks, or double free calls or the like.
No, the pain would be a dangling pointer.
On Feb 12, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
A big thanks for the explanation, which is something I partly
guessed, but which leaves me in a deep trouble :-)
Glad to turn on the flashlight so that you may see the hole. I hope
you know which way to dig now. :-)
I can't figure
On Feb 16, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Rutger Hofman wrote:
If I declare the struct 'packed', then it is size 2. That is enough
for my purposes. I hope that won't greatly change through versions...
Also, there is:
@item [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@opindex mstructure-size-boundary
The size of all structures and
On Feb 22, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
So if ix86_data_alignment wants to return 256 for some variable,
then it seems to me that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT should be 256.
What if the object format doesn't allow recording alignments that
high? For example, DJGPP's coff format can only reco
On Feb 23, 2007, at 1:46 PM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
One extra bit - we do use alignments of base > 32 bytes for code
alignment. What would be the behaviour on targets with
MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT set to 16 bytes?
min (MAX_OFILE_ALIGNMENT, 32) of course.
I.e. if we end up with gas producing many nops
On Mar 1, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Also I think GCC is doing the correct thing right now with respect of
approving patches. Yes in the past we were not as good but now we
have corrected those mistakes.
So, are you saying that an 18 month review process isn't a mistake,
or that
On Mar 1, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
No I am not saying that. I am saying that those patches might not
be worth commenting on.
Or, maybe they are. I think it would be better to have a policy that
addresses this issue, rather than require 18 months of silence for
someone to in
On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Peter Leven wrote:
I have searched the bug archive as well as the mailing lists to see
whether I could find more information about whether the second
feature of -I- will continue to be supported (and, if so, under
what option). I found one bug in the database: #
gcc-help is a more appropriate list...
On Mar 5, 2007, at 12:19 PM, Kate Minola wrote:
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp, mpfr?
Any ordering is probably fine.
I notice that now gcc depends on gmp and mpfr to build.
Yes.
What is the recommended order of building gcc, gmp,
It appears that one of these:
r122580 | doko | 2007-03-05 15:23:18 -0800 (Mon, 05 Mar 2007) | 6 lines
2007-03-02 Mario Torre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR classpath/31017:
committed for Petteri R<83>ty
<[EMAIL P
On Mar 6, 2007, at 11:14 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
Mike Stump schrieb:
I have a feeling sed -i isn't our friend.
fixed.
I can confirm that this fixed my build. I'm expected the regression
tester to follow shortly.
Thanks.
On Mar 7, 2007, at 4:44 AM, Michael Hopkins wrote:
1) Does anyone know when the syntax extensions will be available &
working in the gcc compiler?
I'd like to contribute all the Objective-C front end features in time
for 4.3, unfortunately, I've not started doing that work. I'm hoping
we'
On Mar 7, 2007, at 11:21 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Using "#include " with e.g. sizeof(int_fast8_t) does not
work with cross compilations.
Sounds like a bug? When I try it on my compiler, it works just fine
natively and with cross compilations. I'd file a bug report. If it
is an OS bug,
weird things can happen if the
libtool code that makes it into configure (via the .m4/aclocal) is a
different version from the ltmain.sh ... i like the one where shared
libraries are generated but they lack the '.so' suffix :)
-mike
pgpoWYHqkZCcc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mar 10, 2007, at 6:43 AM, Mohan Embar wrote:
I tried building gcc trunk on Darwin / Intel:
/datal/gcc/gcc/gcc/config/i386/darwin.h:244: unterminated comment
or string; unexpected EOF
You should be able to update and build now... Let us know if not.
On Mar 12, 2007, at 11:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
With the introduction of the variadic templates patch, we now have
more than 255 tree codes in GCC.
I do wonder about compilation speed for C++ code. Barring some other
innovative approach, even with a slow down, which I'd hate, I think
this
On Mar 12, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Can I recommend something just crazy, rewrite the C++ front-end so
they don't use the tree structure at all except when lowering until
gimple like the rest of the GCC front-ends?
:-) I don't have any objections, as long as people can keep th
On Mar 12, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
When I said, let's support Doug, I meant let's support Doug from a
*practical* point of view. Either we suggest something doable with
a realistically sized effort or a little larger and at the same
time we volunteer to actually do it. In my o
On Mar 13, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think removing trailing whitespace would be OK
Generally speaking, yes, but be aware, there are cases where it
should not be removed. To most, the spots that should not be changed
are obvious, o
On Mar 13, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Eric Weddington wrote:
At the risk of extending this out further, can someone explain to
me why
using TABs is preferrable
That is just how to the world is.
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c: In function âvariable_tracking_mainâ:
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c:2961: warning: assuming signed overflow does not
occur when assuming that (X - c) >= X is always true
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c:2961: warning: assuming signed overflow does not
occur when assum
On Mar 13, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c: In function ‘variable_tracking_main’:
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c:2961: warning: assuming signed overflow
does not occur when assuming that (X - c) >= X is always true
../../gcc/gcc/var-tracking.c:2961: warn
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I see it now. My apologies. I just committed a patch to the 4.2
branch to fix it.
--enable-werror, however, that only works well if you have installed
a gcc of the same vintage as your building. If they differ too much,
you'll still mi
[ oops, almost forgot why I stared sending the email ]
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I see it now. My apologies. I just committed a patch to the 4.2
branch to fix it.
I can confirm that fixed it, thanks.
On Mar 14, 2007, at 2:11 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:28:41PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
Interestingly, while...
gcc-4 pr30703.C -fmessage-length=0 -fopenmp -O0 -L/sw/lib/gcc4.2/
lib -lgomp -lstdc++ -lm -m32 -o ./pr30703.exe
Could we please use g++ to compile C++ c
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:12 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Zero FAILs may not be achievable on all targets, but if I had a
magic XFAIL wand, that would put the right XFAIL goo into all tests
before every release so that all users who built the toolchain
correctly always got zero FAILs, I would do it
On Mar 16, 2007, at 6:51 PM, Karthikeyan M wrote:
when you run configure.
If you do use --disable-bootstrap, just run "make all-gcc".
I tried this, it is still using the compiled-compiler in stage2 and
beyond
There is no stage 2 if you aren't bootstrapping. I'd recommend rm -
rf build a
On Mar 17, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Following the discussions for PR30969, PR30980, and PR31161,
it appears that TARGET_C99_FUNCTIONS is not set on OSX 10.3.9
nor OSX 10.4.9. Is this in line with the comment
/* Old versions of Mac OS/Darwin don't have C99 functions
availabl
On Mar 18, 2007, at 2:55 PM, Karthikeyan M wrote:
my problem is not yet solved
It is, it doesn't bootstrap.
Never top post.
On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:13 AM, Markus Franke wrote:
Just another issue. Everything is working fine if using "-O1", "-
O2" or
"-O3".
Maybe this helps.
Regards,
Markus
Markus Franke wrote:
On Mar 19, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
yeah, the trouble is that we don't seem to agree on what is good for
long-term
Sure we do, unless you want a slower compiler that doesn't track the
ANSI C++ standard.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 1:07 AM, Simon Brenner wrote:
I propose to implement incremental parsing in C++
Sounds like a multi-person, multi-year project.
We did something like this a while ago, called the compile server.
The idea was to be able to advance through unchanged portions of code
and
On Mar 20, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Karthikeyan M wrote:
Are these macros not a part of 4.1.2 ?
4.1.2, what's that?! :-)
I just picked up the tarball of the 4.1.2-core source.
Pick something that says 2007 and 4.3... :-)
In general, new work is best done against the top of the tree, that
is t
On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
efficient code? :-)
But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf into generating 100x
faster code 90% of th
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Simon Brenner wrote:
Wow, lots of comments there, Mike ;-)
I could say a lot more... I thought I'd let you drag any other
details you wanted out of me. :-)
My idea was to initially just check for any not obviously safe
changes, and later in the projec
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:03 PM, fafa wrote:
I see. But why not simple "nop" instructions ?
They are the wrong size or too slow. Anyway, this is the wrong list
for such questions generally. This list is for developers of gcc.
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
8-bit tree code (baseline):
real0m51.987s
user0m41.283s
sys 0m0.420s
subcodes (this patch):
real0m53.168s
user0m41.297s
sys 0m0.432s
9-bit tree code (alternative):
real0m56.409s
user0m43.942s
sys 0m0.429s
I
On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
for a -g 16-bit code compile:
real0m2.629s0.15% slower
user0m2.504s
sys 0m0.121s
for a -g -O2 16-bit code compile:
real0m12.958s 0.023% slower
user
On Mar 23, 2007, at 6:08 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
When I brought up the 16-bit option earlier, Jakub replied that x86
would
get hosed worse because it's 16-bit accesses
I'm happy to have experts make predictions. I'm happy to look at
real numbers to double check things. If an expert can
On Mar 26, 2007, at 9:28 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
No, it's more like this:
typedef int copsi __attribute__((mode(COPSI)));
void foo (int *a, copsi *b, int i)
{
while (i--)
{
*a *= 2;
*b *= 2;
}
}
This will keep both the core multiplier and the coprocessor multiplier
busy.
:-( Wou
On Mar 27, 2007, at 8:35 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm currently working in a company, as embedded developper, which
use gnu
tools. I have a good experience about non gnu compiler tools and i
need
help because the most disavantage of gcc compiler is the almost
unexistant
support for deve
On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:45 AM, Aurélien Benoit-Lévy wrote:
Do you have any idea of what went wrong and any idea of what should
I do ?
Hum, I'd be tempted to say, try a gcc-4.2 snapshot. If it doesn't
work, we'll fix it for you. :-)
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:05 AM, Sergio Giro wrote:
int TheClass::exceptMethod() _throw TheException {
throw TheException();
}
In this case, the gcc would check at runtime that the only exception
the method exceptMethod may throw is TheException.
It does.
Moreover
int TheClass::wrongMethod()
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:24 AM, albino aiello wrote:
i must add a new pass to gcc. I want to receive from command line
an integer value at compilation time. I have modify the file
common.opt but tha value of the variable is alwais 0.
I have add the following row:
my-variable=
Common Var (my_
On Mar 30, 2007, at 11:59 AM, Sergio Giro wrote:
The errors mentioned are compile errors,
So, you want a strict subset of the language standard. This is best
done with something like -fstatic-exception-specifications or maybe -
Wexception-specifications -Werror. If you wanted finer control
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Null Heart wrote:
I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun
Two thoughts come to mind. First, qualify your system with a known
to build, known to be good compiler. Build it 20 times, if it never
fails to build, you probably have a good system.
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Null Heart wrote:
... No file failed.
You've not read the output correctly. The file named by make failed,
that file named is gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F.lo.
GCJ did not give an error.
That then is a bug is gcj, a failed compile should produce
On Mar 30, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
../../gcc-4.3-20070331/libcpp/directives.c:2086: error: pointer
targets in initialization differ in signedness
Re-update and build again, should work now I think.
On Mar 31, 2007, at 2:39 AM, albino aiello wrote:
my problem is that the value of the variable that i have defined in
common.opt in the following manner is always at the default value
Now, take something that works, print it's value. Pass the
documented flag, see if you can notice it change
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:32 AM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I have for a while been working on a tool that performs static
analysis
Ah, yeah, that I suspect would be a even better way to do this...
Itt would be nice if gcc/g++ had more support for static analysis
tools... Maybe with LTO.
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:03 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Many x86 SSE source codes use __declspec. I'd like to make
__declspec available for Linux/x86. We can do one of the
following:
1. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for Linux/x86.
2. Define TARGET_DECLSPEC for x86.
3. Add -mdeclspec.
Any comments?
I suspect I'd
On Apr 2, 2007, at 7:54 PM, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
I am working on integrating GCC 4.1.x series into FreeBSD src/ tree.
I went ahead and implemented necessary code in FreeBSD's ld-elf.so.
1 and with little changes in gcc crtstuff.c and unwind-dw2-fde-
glibc.c I was able to get things working
On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:56 AM, Aurélien Benoit-Lévy wrote:
Here is the err_make file.
A file attachment for a 1 line text file... Ouch. Cut-n-paste is
your friend.
Anyway, looks like a rev mismatch between as and gcc, Yup, I'd expect
a 4.2 snapshot to solve this problem.
On Apr 5, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
The test/debug/recompile loop I spend much of my life in lately is
dominated by link time.
We found that omitting the debug information from the link step
solves this issue.
I was wondering, if:
/* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_CORE2 | m_GENERIC),
is correct. Should it be:
/* X86_TUNE_USE_INCDEC */
~(m_PENT4 | m_NOCONA | m_GENERIC),
?
In the original patch in:
2006-11-18 Vladimir Makarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/invoke.texi
On Apr 8, 2007, at 2:37 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
My docs say that "INC/DEC does not change the carry flag".
Personally, I'm having a hard time envisioning how the semantics of
the instruction are relevant at all. This is all about instructing
tuning, so, semantics cannot matter, otherwise, i
On Apr 8, 2007, at 8:51 PM, Zuxy Meng wrote:
Intel's optimization reference manual says that:
I wasn't going off the documentation... I'd be more interested in
either benchmarks or in recommendations by Intel people that know the
details of the core2 and the performance impact of those det
On Apr 9, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Chris Dams wrote:
I am not sure whether the problem I am going to describe is a
problem with
gcc or with the dynamic linker on Mac OS X, but maybe someone here
knows a
way to deal with it or could suggest a more appropriate mailing
list. I
use gcc 3.3 on Darwin 7
On Apr 9, 2007, at 12:14 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
How many code's species are they?
One for every problem...
7. Code for IPA??? <- i don't know this weird language. Is it with
attributes?.
8. Code for GIMPLE??? <- i don't know this weird language.
9. Code for RTL??? <- i don't know this weir
On Apr 10, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I seem to recall that at one point somebody worked on a gensimplify
program or something like that. Would it make sense to revive that
approach, and use it to generate simplifiers for trees, GIMPLE, and
RTL, to avoid triplification of th
On Apr 10, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Sergio Giro wrote:
Maybe I missed some point: why everything should be rewritten?
Let me try again. The standard way to add a new qualifier in g++, is
to add it in an attribute, please do that. The possible responses
are, no, I want to be different, or ok. If
On Apr 12, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Thomas Neumann wrote:
no, and this is the reason why I send tiny patches. But I could try to
fill the required paperwork (although I think I read it takes ages
to be
processed).
If you never again plain to submit a change, sure, just ignore it.
If you think yo
On Apr 17, 2007, at 3:11 AM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
I wonder, that if I am to use gcc head, how can I do that?
This isn't a trick question is it? Anyway, it is answered by our web
site. Briefly, you check out trunk and then you edit it. patch is
one way to mass edit a source tree for exam
On Apr 17, 2007, at 2:56 PM, Eric Weddington wrote:
Well this begs the question of why, when there are so many
different targets, are there are only 4 optimization flags
(1,2,3,s), especially when they only get tuned to certain targets?
If you count again, you'll see there are more than 4 op
On Apr 18, 2007, at 12:38 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
I think we should output the tree dumps in a combination of active
JAXML that lets you edit fonts and typestyles in real time, with
embedded VRML so that you can fly round a three-dimensional forest
full of SSA trees rendered in real time.
I d
On Apr 20, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
One possibility would be to have a -Om switch (or whatever) that
says "do all optimizations for this machine that help".
Ick, gross. No.
I must say the rule about all optimizations being the same on
all machines seems odd to me
I'd look at i
On Apr 21, 2007, at 3:12 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
So, Mike, my question is, assuming we cannot remove the rule what
do you want to do
I think in the end, each situation is different and we have to find
the best solution for each situation. So, in that siprit, let's open
a discussio
We still have some lno bits in our tree. We tried to remove them and
found:
gzip +0.5%
vpr -0.4%
gcc -3.2%
mcf -0.3%
crafty +0.2%
parser +0.2%
perlbmk -2.2%
gap +0.2%
vortex -0.1%
bzip2 +1.9%
twolf -0.7%
on x86 (probably a core2 duo) in our 4.2 tree (with the rest of our
local patches). -3
On Apr 24, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Wolfgang Gellerich wrote:
What is the policy concerning the usage of SAVE_EXPRs?
Roughly, if you do something like:
tree foo(a, b)
return build (a, b);
You don't need any saving. If you do:
tree foo(a, b)
return build (a, build (a, b));
You need to
On Apr 28, 2007, at 5:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have looked hard, but I cannot figure out how to
1) identify gcc for MSwindowsXP from a mirror site
google("cygwin") will find what we'd recommend.
pples GCC is quite different from regular GCC,
and iirc your KHTML changes are undocumented. I don't know if the same
policy applies here but if so I'd rather not wade through the
differential looking for them.
Are these compatibility patches available in discrete diff form
anywhere?
thanks -mike
On Feb 21, 2005, at 3:45 AM, Mile Davidovic wrote:
Functions are completely the same.
What is the reason for such compilere behaviour?
Just lack of code in the compiler to do better, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg00354.html for some of the
details and starting point, should you
On Feb 25, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
what is darwin_register_objc_includes in gcc/config/darwin-c.c for? is
it needed for linux?
/* Register the GNU objective-C runtime include path if STDINC. */
/* Register the GNU OBJC runtime include path if we are compiling
OBJC
wi
On Feb 25, 2005, at 7:41 PM, Rogelio M.Serrano Jr. wrote:
I have also moved all my changes to gcc.c and c-incpath.c into
config/linux.h and config/frameworks.c. the latter is just darwin-c.c
with the pragma stuff removed.
Sounds reasonable.
I also have a problem with -F switch it makes gcc hang.
S
On Feb 26, 2005, at 8:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gcc -XLinker -M test.c 2>test.map
would output some usful information about locating
function to lib and ...
The detail analyze of them would be very useful.
Where can I find some introduce document about them?
This list isn't for such questions
On Feb 28, 2005, at 3:41 AM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
I'd like to know what the 'official' position regarding ObjC++ is now.
Anybody willing to clear up?
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch and
it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or that's w
On Mar 3, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
Sure, why not... Either, someone will submit a clean, safe patch
and it will be reviewed and OKed and it will be checked in, or
that's won't happen.
can I asume that this is a political change by Apple in this regard?
I tried to describ
an be run
on older systems. Is this possible? If so, how do you do it?
thanks -mike
On Sunday, March 6, 2005, at 05:17 PM, Alfonso Urdaneta wrote:
I'd like to start hacking on osx gcc. What tag is recommented to
check out ? Also, what areas need work most? I'm an experienced
programmer, but I know jack about gcc.
You have a few choices. Mainline is best, and what I would re
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 03:52 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Per Bothner wrote:
So the immediate question is: how should the testcase be fixed?
Specify a line number in the second dg-error to tell dejagnu what line
to
expect the error on.
{ dg-error "expected regexp" "test
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 03:42 PM, James E Wilson wrote:
If you do need to extend the system, then it is best to use option
names similar to existing ones. For instance, -z and -Z are assumed
to be linker options, so if you need a new linker option then
something like -zthis or -Zthat mig
On Friday, March 11, 2005, at 06:39 PM, Steve Kargl wrote:
What is even more appalling is that there is no way to inhibit the
swallowing of the options.
Sure there is, it is just a matter of code. Check out --classpath and
option_map for example in gcc.c. Sure seems like it isn't harder than
a
On Saturday, March 12, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
If lang.opt is the canonical method used to declare language
specific option, then there should be a feature in parsing
lang.opt to override all other options.
Hard to disagree with anything you said...
On Mar 14, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
After enabling that patch, we recompiled the whole system, all of X,
and the
3000 packages of third party sources.
-ftrampolines was needed exactly 0 times.
We'll need it at least once that we know about for darwin. I don't
expect an impact from th
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 08:57 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering if it is at all possible to coax the gcc 4.0
testsuite to run cleanly with a binary installation of gcc 4.0?
Yes. CC_UNDER_TEST=gcc runtest --srcdir=. --tool gcc or something like
that.
101 - 200 of 1036 matches
Mail list logo
