Hi, I've come with a problem with g++ 4.1.1 and people at gcc-help said
they think it's a bug, so I'll forward my original email to this list.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima
- Forwarded message from Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 20
es -iquote, and there's a patch floating around that adds
-ignore-source-dir flag
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00653.html). What else is
needed move this forward?
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima
dy, I'm sort of excited because of the
possibilities it unleashes. I'd really like to help on this task, but I
never worked on GCC internals, and helping implement concepts for it
isn't the best or more efficient way to start :)
Best regards and thanks for the awesome compiler you guys put out,
Rodolfo Lima
to do that.
When the time to get the hands dirty arrives, I'll need to know if
somebody's working off-branch on some parts to avoid unnecessary work.
I also know that ConceptGCC's implementation isn't the best, so it'll be
good to know which parts of it are in good shape and which must be
rethought and reimplemented.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima
Hi, I'd like to know if somebody is implementing c++0x's unrestricted
unions (N2544) in g++, or if there are any plans to do it in mid-term.
Thanks,
Rodolfo Lima
Rodolfo Lima escreveu:
> Hi, I'd like to know if somebody is implementing c++0x's unrestricted
> unions (N2544) in g++, or if there are any plans to do it in mid-term.
Sorry, by 'in mid-term' I meant "in a not too distant timeframe".
[]s,
rod
Em 06-07-2010 07:46, Paolo Carlini escreveu:
> That work is incomplete, cannot be merged as-is:
Thanks for pointing it out for me, Paolo.
[]s,
rod
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ gcc -O0 test.c -o test
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5: warning: comparison is always false due to limited range of data type
does not make sense to me in the following code:
#include
int main (char *argv[], int argc) {
unsigned short int number;
for (nu
weren't applied, this kind of demotivate me.
Best regards,
Rodolfo Lima
get rid of
those spurious warnings in detriment of not knowing whether the pch was
used or not.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
ho are already using C++0x new features.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
GCC, but that doesn't work now.
Thanks for your explanation (and Andrew's in a private message). I was
looking for this info in a FAQ but couldn't find it.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
biguity.
> This problem can be also reduced to this one:
> ==
> void foo() { }
> void foo(int) { }
>
> int main()
> {
>&foo;
> }
> ==
This is different because there's no function template involved.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
function is
added. Being the only function in the set, there's no ambiguity and the
address of "void foo()" should be passed to "bar".
Best regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
Rodolfo Schulz de Lima escreveu:
> Dave Korn escreveu:
>> Thanks, and do drop a note back with a summary of what you find out
> over
>> there when you're done; if there's definitely a bug in gcc's
> understanding of
>> the resolution rules, obvious
in other cases may not.
Are there any guarantees besides what's currently dictated by the standard?
In particular, may 'offsetof' in GNU/gcc work properly with types that
only respect the (new) requirement of having "standard-layout"? If so,
does it happen in any particular version?
Thanks a lot for your help.
--
Rodolfo Federico Gamarra
#x27;t. What am I doing wrong, and how can one do such a thing?
Maybe the problem is that I create no calls to that new function, what
do you think? Anyway, I'm compiling with -O0, so I guess no
optimization pass would remove my function just because it is not
being used.
Thanks in advance,
-
is simply not output. And when I try to
debug gcc with gdb, it always fails.
Any thoughts? Maybe I am missing something related to garbage
collection or so... Not a clue.
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
2013/7/22 Martin Jambor :
> Hi,
>
> On W
ut my implementation right after the end of
c_parser_omp_parallel(), in file c-parser.c.
Again, thank you for the help.
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
2013/7/22 Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich :
> Hello,
>
> Thanks! I had solved the problem some days a
and see whether your function is listed.
You were right, but this is a direct consequence of my function being
removed like discussed before.
I'll keep investigating the problem and will inform you in case
something changes.
Thank you,
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
citly setting DECL_EXTERNAL to false.
Cheers,
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
2013/7/23 Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich :
> Hello,
>
> 2013/7/23 Martin Jambor :
>> Hi,
>>
>> But you do call cgraph_add_new_function on it as well, righ
Again, thank you for the patience. I'm kind of new to gcc, so I was
basically learning how to do it.
Kindest regards,
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
2013/7/23 Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich :
> Later I found out that cgraph_mark_needed_node was already b
the flag thing is the best way to do
it, please let me know and help me, telling how to implement that new
flag (I can't figure out how to).
Thanks in advance,
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
y to do it?
Regards,
---
Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
Universidade Estadual de Campinas - Unicamp
2013/9/1 David Edelsohn :
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Rodolfo Guilherme Wottrich
> wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I would like to be able to generate multiple binaries fro
s internals to
make a thorough check. The message gcc output, saying that -iquote
should be used instead of -I- is just plain wrong. Seeing that 4.5.0
release is just around the corner, is it feasible to have this patch
committed into 4.5 branch?
Best regards,
Rodolfo Lima
Hello, I've posted a message to comp.gcc.help with a compiler error I'm
having but after some testing me and others found out is a regression on
gcc-4.5, the code is the following:
// ---
template
struct identity
{
typedef T type;
};
template
struct foo {};
Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Thanks. There's no need to post it to this mailing list too, bugzilla
> changes already go to the gcc-bugs mailing list where people can track
> new bug reports.
Oh, sorry ;)
[]s,
rod
Hi, I'd like to know if there's plans to merge Pedro Lamarão's
implementation of delegating constructors into trunk. While we're at it,
is there someone implementing C++0x's inheriting constructors?
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima
test a(data(*)()), isn't it? What's the catch?
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
type test and
taking an argument of the type data.
Thanks for the explanation. I'll look for this info in the standard to
have a better grasp of what's involved here.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
;
}
int main()
{
// proper way (according to g++) to call non-templated print
// call(static_cast(&print));
call(&print);
call(&print<5>);
call(&print<7,6>);
return 0;
}
The correct output should be:
null
5
7 6
Thanks for your help,
Rodolfo Lima.
en consider this situation in
overload resolution. With this said, in your exemple the only overload
for '&foo' should be 'void foo()'.
==
void foo() { }
template void foo() { }
int main()
{
&foo;
}
==
It can help you to understand what's happend.
Yes, thank you, your example is much more concise.
Thanks,
Rodolfo Lima.
the former not.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
Overload
resolution with template and non-template functions", and it's waiting
for moderator approval.
Regards,
Rodolfo Lima.
Dave Korn escreveu:
Thanks, and do drop a note back with a summary of what you find out over
there when you're done; if there's definitely a bug in gcc's understanding of
the resolution rules, obviously we'd like to open a PR and get it fixed.
I think we have finally a consensus at
http://gr
Dave Korn escreveu:
> Thanks, and do drop a note back with a summary of what you find out
over
> there when you're done; if there's definitely a bug in gcc's
understanding of
> the resolution rules, obviously we'd like to open a PR and get it fixed.
I think we have finally a consensus at
ht
36 matches
Mail list logo
