--- Comment #5 from scovich at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 20:12 ---
Belated follow-up: I just tried to use sparc-sun-solaris2.10-gcc-4.4.0 (built
from sources) and it does not emit the DW_AT_call_* debug attributes which gdb
expects in order to unwind inlined functions.
I have searched
--- Comment #6 from scovich at gmail dot com 2010-05-07 21:20 ---
Aha! The problem is not that gcc fails to emit the proper debug info, it's that
it doesn't always track well which instructions came from which function.
For example, if we compile this toy program:
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
Summary: Inline asm should support input/output of flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.5.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49611
--- Comment #2 from Ryan Johnson 2011-07-04 20:32:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Making this work reliably is probably more work than making GCC use the flags
> from more cases from regular C code.
Does that mean each such case would need
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: scovich at gmail dot com
GCC host triplet: i686-pc-cygwin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34115
--- Comment #5 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-16 01:00 ---
Subject: Re: atomic builtins not supported on i686?
On 15 Nov 2007 23:53:06 -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because the default arch for i686-linux-gnu is i386.
> Wh
--- Comment #6 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-16 01:04 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: atomic builtins not supported on i686?
>
> On 15 Nov 2007 23:53:06 -, joseph at codesourcery dot com
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Because the
ass?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.2.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: scovich at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34184
--- Comment #2 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-23 02:06 ---
Subject: Re: Scope broken for inherited members inside template class?
On 22 Nov 2007 21:03:11 -, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The issue comes down to if bar is dependent he
--- Comment #7 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-28 01:56 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I think this is essentially invalid. Note that now we also have the various
> __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_* macros:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Common-Predefined
--- Comment #9 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-11-28 14:20 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Too bad they aren't defined for any machine I've tried so far...
>
> The explanation is very simple: the new macros are implemented only i
--- Comment #4 from scovich at gmail dot com 2007-12-11 17:27 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note you can declare a specialization of foo::bar which shows that the code
> is really dependent.
>
Duh! That's perfect. Thanks.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34184
101 - 112 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
