On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:16 PM Warren D Smith wrote:
>
> x = x^x;
>
> The purpose of the above is to load "x" with zero.
Don't waste your time. Intel was offering that advice to writers of assembly
language and compilers. Gcc already does the right thing.
Try the following on an Intel/AMD
The reason move constructors were introduced was to speed up code in cases
where an object
Is copied and the copy is no longer needed. It is unfortunate that there may
now be code out
there that relies on accidental properties of library implementations. It
would be best if the
Implementation
You can already do this today. Run the output of the compiler through 'tac'.
No need for a new feature.
https://linux.die.net/man/1/tac
-Original Message-
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of nicolas
bouillot
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:09
Python has a distinct integer division operator, "//". 7 // 3 returns the
integer 2.
-Original Message-
From: libstdc++-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:libstdc++-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Wakely
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 10:11 AM
To: libstd...@gcc.gnu.org;
(delurking)
Ian Grant writes:
In case it isn't obvious, what I am interested in is how easily we can know
the problem of infeasibly large binaries isn't an instance of this one:
http://livelogic.blogspot.com/2014/08/beware-insiduous-penetrator-my-son.html
Ah, this is commonly called
Some background on the below: Google has recently changed its algorithms, and
the presence of obvious spam mails pointing to a site now *lower* that site's
Google rank. So the same search engine optimization people who created the
spams for pay in the first place are now frantically trying to
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:23:51AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 8/9/2013 11:05 AM, Deng Hengyi wrote:
Hi Joel,
I have done a test, it seems that '-march=i386' does not provide
__atomic_compare_exchange_n libs. And '-march=i486' or '-march=pentium'
can find the
Richard Henderson writes:
On
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html
we have a stale link to
http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html
What's the new canonical location for this document?
Looks like CodeSourcery is being assimilated into Mentor. The parent
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something. While memcpy is not permitted to assume
alignment of its arguments, copy is. Otherwise, if I wrote
void copy(struct foo* f0, struct foo* f1)
{
*f0 = *f1;
}
the compiler
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee w...@tilera.com wrote:
On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 08:02:30PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This improves the fairly uninformative Operation not supported
message given when std::thread is used without linking to libpthread.
Now you get:
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::system_error'
what():
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:39:16PM -0700, Rick Hodgin wrote:
I've thought more about the syntax, and I see this making more sense:
bool isSystemOpen[!isSystemClosed];
You've just declared an array of bool, whose size is the expression
!isSystemClosed.
As developers have already showed you how
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 02:13:47PM -0400, Rafael Espíndola wrote:
[ problem with visibility for bar::~bar for testcase ]
$ cat test.h
struct foo {
virtual ~foo();
};
struct bar : public foo {
virtual void zed();
};
$ cat def.cpp
#include test.h
void bar::zed() {
}
$ cat undef.cpp
It only saves one character in any case: your self is just *this.
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] on behalf of Ian Lance
Taylor [i...@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:19 AM
To: Rick C. Hodgin
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do
this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question
is whether this is something that GCC wants to have.
If the answer is NO, that is
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 04:33:54PM -0800, Aayush Upadhyay wrote:
I'm a sophomore in college, and I'm a solid C programmer. I'd like to
work on an open source project, and the gcc compiler seems like a great
one. However, I'm not sure if work is still done on the compiler itself,
or just
On 10/10/2011 08:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
PODness has changed from C++98.
Jason Merrill wrote:
Class layout in the ABI still uses the C++98 definition of POD.
But does this actually matter? If I understand correctly, more classes are POD
under the C++11
rules than the C++98 rules, but
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:04:34PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
Adding this to GCC seems like a total waste of time, write a dwarf
processor that dumps the info you want.
Agreed.
I suspect there is a
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:35:17PM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C++11 is essentially binary incompatible with C++98.
Only partially. The layout for user-defined classes is the same, and
code sequences for calls that don't include new features like rvalue
references is the same. Some very
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:24 PM, James Y Knight f...@fuhm.net wrote:
I guess to start, it would have been nice if there was a big warning on
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html telling me not to use c++0x mode
unless there are no objects compiled with c++98 linked into the same
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:07:07AM -0700, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 September 2011 19:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21 September 2011 18:51, Nathan Ridge wrote:
Now that the C++11 standard has been officially voted in, there is nothing
experimental about it any more.
I thought the
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:08:01PM -0700, Xiangfu Liu wrote:
Hi
I got the pdf file. and I also sent out the papers by postal mail.
where is the pdf file I should send to?
I have tried:
copyright-cl...@fsf.org ass...@gnu.org
and I don't know Donald R. Robertson's email address
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 07:20:41AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Hmmm, you're right, -Wmissing-declarations seems to be equivalent to
-Wmissing-prototypes when using C++. Sorry I missed that.
Then it would seem that HJ's issue could be fixed by treating
-Wmissing-prototypes as a synonym for
I'm confused. Since C++ treats the lack of a prototype as a hard error, what
does it mean to make -Wmissing-prototypes useless?
From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of H.J. Lu
[hjl.to...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 09:05:19AM -0700, Florian Merz wrote:
If I remember the standard correctly, pointer subtraction is valid if both
pointers point to elements of the same array or to one past the last element
of the array. According to this 0x8000 - 0x7FFF should be a valid
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com wrote:
-ftrapv and -fwrapv should have no effect on pointer subtraction.
Gaby writes:
Yes!
Wouldn't it suffice to convert the pointers to unsigned, do an unsigned
subtraction, and then convert the result to signed?
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:30:16AM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Diogo Sousa wrote:
Hi,
I checked the library functions in inttypes.h item in c99status
(marked as Library Issue) [http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html], and it
seems that glibc implements everything
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:32:16AM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
G++ has had a long-standing bug with unqualified name resolution in
templates: if we didn't find any declaration when looking up a name in
the template definition, we would do an additional unqualified lookup at
the point of
On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 11:33:44AM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
It sounds to me like the question are you allowed to translate this remains
valid and open, even if this particular translator is not real.
Yes, the SC's discussing it with RMS now and I'm hopeful that there will
be some positive
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 11:38:02PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Our releases are normally built with GNU tar, which seems to default to
--format=tar. I wonder if we should switch to --format=pax. The pax
format was defined by POSIX.1 10 years ago, and should be widely
supported at this
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:52:56AM -0700, FX wrote:
this is a known issue and strictly cygwin related. Please update your
cygwin environment to newest version, or disable decimal-floating
point by option.
Well, maybe this is known, but it is not noted on the GCC 4.6.0 release
notes, nor
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:33:58AM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Girard k...@kdmanalytics.com wrote:
That *is* the content of the bar method. What exactly do you expect to
see
happening when you assign a class with no members? There's nothing to
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 01:56:47AM -0800, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
Hello Folks
You certainly know about aspect orientated programming.
http://www.aspectc.org/
Is there any chance that this will ever be integrated into official gcc?
Would be cool to define aspect because it would make your
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 05:57:13PM -0800, Paul Koning wrote:
It seems that this proposal would benefit programs that need more than 2 GB
but less than 4 GB, and for some reason really don't want 64 bit pointers.
This seems like a microscopically small market segment. I can't see any
sense
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 09:08:39AM -0800, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Hi,
I would like to ask the opinion of C/C++ maintainers about the extension
that the Intel compiler proposes for array notations:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 02:47:30PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:26:58PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Chris Lattner:
On overflow it just forces the size passed in to operator new
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:26:58PM -0800, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Chris Lattner:
On overflow it just forces the size passed in to operator new to
-1ULL, which throws bad_alloc.
This is also what my patch tries to implement.
Yes, but Chris's code just checks the overflow of the multiply.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:49:23PM -0800, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The existing GCC behaviour is a bit more perverse than the
C malloc() case as in
new T[n]
there is no multiplication that could be credited to careless programmer.
The multiplication is introduced by GCC.
... which
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 05:08:44AM -0800, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 09:36:08AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
The D specific part of gdc is already GPL, it's just copyrighted by
Digital Mars. I understand the copyright must be reassigned to the FSF.
Is it possible to fork
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:47:34PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It is not so unlikely that multiple instances of cc1, cc1plus, and f951
are running simultaneously. Granted, I haven't done any measurements.
Most projects are written in only one language. Sure, there may be
cases where
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 02:43:18PM -0700, Sebastian wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 H.J. Lu wrote:
gcc can not dump a callgraph. Both GNU ld and gold can dump a
cross-reference table, which is not a call graph but could perhaps be
used to produce a call graph. See the --cref option.
--cref
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:49:58AM -0700, Artem S. Tashkinov wrote:
Hello,
Something tells me that GCC 4.4.5 and 4.5.2 should have been
released a long time ago, but I don't even see regular GCC
status updates. Are all release managers on leave?
Who or what is this something that tells you
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
currently is
charged with maintaining their objc languages about the issue.
Apple does not have an internal
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:21:05AM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
part would just
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:34:51AM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn but
rightly so.
I don't see what the
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL-GFDL I
cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because there is explicit language in the Affero
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:51:13PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
gcc and gccint docs are actually pretty reasonable. (Certainly gccint is
vastly better than some of its siblings, like gdbint.) But very little of it
is generated and very little of what comes to mind as possible subject matter
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 01:20:45PM -0700, Brian Makin wrote:
Or to move to a better foundation? It seems to me that gcc has had various
issues for various reasons for quite a while now. RMS is all for tightly
controller yet freely distributable software.
Maybe it's time to throw more
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53:48AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I believe that the right fix (short of simply abandoning the GFDL, which
would be fine with me, but is presumably not going to pass muster with
RMS) is a revision to the GPL that explicitly permits relicensing GPL'd
content under
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:36:46PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
This got complicated; see previous postings. But,
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:10:56AM -0700, Jan Hubicka wrote:
When you compile with -Os, the inlining happens only when code size reduces.
Thus we pretty much care about the code size metrics only. I suspect the
problem here might be that normal C++ code needs some inlining to make
abstraction
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 01:39:44AM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
... I was told that
generating a *texi file from (GPLv3+ licensed, FSF copyrighted) source
code could be incompatible with the GFDL license of gccint.texi.
The SC is trying to work something out with RMS on this (more
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:57:31AM -0700, Toon Moene wrote:
On 05/17/2010 08:08 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
Hi!
PR42904 is a bug where, when compiling a windows DLL using
-fwhole-program,
the compiler optimises away the entire library body, because there's no
dependency chain
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 01:12:45PM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Not sure where to send this, who is responsible for the mail server
for gcc.gnu.org?
The admins can be reached at overse...@gcc.gnu.org .
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:30:33AM -0700, Mark Mielke wrote:
Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
specification and by the Linux glibc manpage:
DESCRIPTION
The memcpy() function copies n bytes from memory area src to
memory
area
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 08:29:19AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 07:30:33AM -0700, Mark Mielke wrote:
Just a quick comment than Jan-Benedict's opinion is widely shared by the
specification
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
copyright over a
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
The real issue is not the copyright disclaimer, it is the legal terms
inside. Maybe U.Illinois don't use words like unlumited liaibility.
Where are you getting this term unlimited liability from?
I think that your legal
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, [...]
The main
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:22:32AM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
problem, as always, is who will do this job. But I don't think nobody
will be against if you create a GCC blog/tweeter/youtube channel and
start writing nice
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:00:16AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
I wrote a little blog post that shows off some of the things that Clang can
do. It would be great to improve some of GCC/G++'s diagnostics in a similar
way:
http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/amazing-feats-of-clang-error-recovery.html
...As it happens, some C++ diagnostics are better than the
same diagnostic for C and viceversa.
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 09:45:11AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
I think all the C examples are also valid C++ code,
From: Ian Bolton [mailto:bol...@icerasemi.com]
Is there any reason why BB reorder has been disabled
in bb-reorder.c for -Os, such that you can't even
turn it on with -freorder-blocks?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:21:05PM -0700, Paul Koning wrote:
Does -Os mean optimize even if it makes
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
Hello.
I tried to do
for (;; ({ break; }))
printf(Hello\n);
and got an error message:
error: break statement not within loop or switch
But it only got through the parser, so that this error message
could be
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 02:40:44PM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:06:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
Hello.
I tried to do
for (;; ({ break; }))
printf(Hello\n);
and got an error
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:45:49AM -0800, Martin Guy wrote:
You want to cater for a minority with old hardware. I
actually expect you'll find that those users are less naive than the
average gcc user.
I want to cater for everyone, especially youngsters, learners and the
poor struggling
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 06:00:07PM -0800, Tim Prince wrote:
On 2/18/2010 4:54 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
But maybe I didn't ask the right question: can any x86 experts comment on
recently made x86 CPUs that would not function correctly with code
produced by --with-arch=i486? Are there any
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
--with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics. I think we
would only need to bump the default to i486 to get atomic support. Can
we reconsider
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 04:31:37PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
On 02/18/2010 03:30 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 02:09:14PM -0800, Jason Merrill wrote:
I periodically get bitten by bug 34115: a compiler configured without
--with-arch on i686-pc-linux-gnu doesn't support atomics
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 06:23:45PM -0800, Michael Witten wrote:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:05 PM, Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com
wrote:
Even for implementors knowing *very* well both the details of the C++
standard and the internals of a specific front-end, implementing export
is
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:00:44AM -0800, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
I think the main reason is that DMD front end sources are dual licensed
with GPL and Artistic License. The DMD backend is not under an open
source license (personal use only), so the Artistic License is how the
two are
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 05:31:03PM -0800, Jerry Quinn wrote:
There is renewed interest in getting a D compiler into the GCC sources.
The most direct route for this to happen is to use the existing Digital
Mars DMD front end.
The current DMD front end code is GPL licensed, and copyright is
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 11:06:13AM -0800, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:35:17AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
Besides, didn't I see a whole bunch of kernel security patches related
to null pointer dereferences lately? If page 0 can be mapped, you
suddenly won't get
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:36:00PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
My opinion is that code containing undefined behaviors is definitely
interesting, but probably it is interesting in a different way than
functions that are more meaningful.
Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 01:53:30PM -0800, John Regehr wrote:
Optimizations based on uninitialized variables make me very nervous.
If uninitialized memory reads are transformed into don't-cares, then
checking tools like valgrind will no longer see the UMR (assuming that
the lack of
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:07:28PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Paolo Carlini paolo.carl...@oracle.com writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
OK, to me that seems like an excellent reason to implement a special
case for the warning here. For example, perhaps if a struct has only
one field,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:26:36AM -0800, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
My feeling is that Google's Go (quite a nice language from the slides I just
have read) is almost canonically the case
for a front-end plugin.
I have some major concerns about this suggestion. Isn't this a recipe for
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de writes:
The wish for more granular and thus smaller debug information (things like
-gfunction-arguments which would properly show parameter values
for backtraces) was brought up. We agree that
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:40:57PM -0700, Paul Smedley wrote:
I'm wanting to update the GNU ADA compiler for OS/2... I'm currently
building GCC 4.3.x and 4.4.x on OS/2 (C/C++/fortran) but for ADA
configure complains about not finding gnat. The problem is that the
only gnat compiled for OS/2
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 05:58:05PM -0700, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2009-08-04 15:44:05 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
But AFAIK neither Posix nor the C89 standard nor the C99 standard
say anything about -D and -U flags. It's the Single UNIX specification
that is the issue, and it refers
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 08:03:56AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
Erwin == Unruh, Erwin erwin.un...@ts.fujitsu.com writes:
Erwin In current gcc the order of options -D and -U is significant. The
Erwin Single Unix(r) Specification explicitly specifies that the order
Erwin should not matter for the
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 11:42:51AM -0700, Ross Smith wrote:
On 2009-08-05, at 04:03, Joe Buck wrote:
Another alternative would be an extra flag that would turn on
conformance
to the spec.
Traditionally spelled -posixly-correct in other GNU software. This would
presumably also affect
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:34:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
this mailing list.
Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were
* Joe Buck:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
later
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 01:53:40PM -0700, Florian Weimer wrote:
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo discovered that as an operating system vendor,
you are not allowed to distribute GPL version 2 programs if they are
compiled with GCC 4.4. The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
later, which is
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:35:13PM -0700, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
Re: -print-* command-line switches misbehave or are misdocumented
Why not just fix it, if not document the way it works, cutsie, its a
developer feature fools no one and just hands ammunition to the
anti Linux and GNU camp,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 08:59:32AM -0700, Bryce wrote:
Many IDEs other than the ones that you list on your page of
front-ends to GCC compiler exist. One such IDE is XCode 3.1.3, which
is developed by Apple, Inc.
That's not an oversight. The intention is to only include free software,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:38:31AM -0700, Alexander Monakov wrote:
1. Add bool field `modified_p' in bitmap structure.
2. Make iterator setup functions (e.g. bmp_iter_set_init) reset it to
false.
3. Make functions that modify the bitmap set it to true.
4. Make iterator increment function
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:19:19PM -0700, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
* Test starting the bootstrap with earlier versions of the compiler to
see which C++ compiler version is required, and document that.
I think the right approach is not
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Alan Modraamo...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
..., but I think this warning should be in -Wc++-compat, not -Wall
or even -Wextra. Why? I'd argue the warning is useless for C code,
unless you care about C++ style.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:35:48AM -0700,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Joe Buckjoe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
But if the initialization is skipped and the variable is then used,
won't we get an uninitialized-variable warning?
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:32:51AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Did we get any in the cases Ian
Richard Guenther wrote:
It is known (but maybe not appropriately documented) that deleting
bits in the bitmap you iterate over is not safe. If it would be me I would
see if I could make it safe though.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:06:38AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
It's not a huge deal -- what
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 04:51:17PM -0700, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I also agree with Robert's comments that all warnings are about valid C,
with -Wall we diagnose what we subjectively feel is dubious coding
practice. Not everyone will agree with what -Wall contains, that's not a
reason to freeze
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 10:54:06AM -0700, Adam Nemet wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
We need something more like I think Fred Bloggs knows gcc well enough
to approve patches to reload or I am Fred Bloggs and I know gcc well
enough to approve patches to reload.
And whom should
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:03:53PM -0700, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Jun 8, 2009, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
- Performance differences over SPEC2006 and the other benchmarks
we keep track of.
This one is trivial: none whatsoever. The generated code is the same,
and it
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Andrew Nisbeta.nis...@mmu.ac.uk wrote:
Hello,
I am interested in developing LLVM functionality to support the
interfaces in GCC ICI.
On Jun 5, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
GCC != LLVM. And this is a GCC list. Can LLVM topics please be
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:50:52AM -0700, Shobaki, Ghassan wrote:
In some optimization passes it may be useful to know the programming
language that we are compiling. Is there a way to get that information
in the middle end and back end?
Is that really a good idea? If a particular
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 01:34:37PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes:
Sebastian Pop wrote:
On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 08:12, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote:
What would we have to do to make PPL and CLooG required to build GCC?
Why would that be desirable?
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Denis Onischenko
denis.onische...@gmail.com wrote:
The minimal code example is following:
extern unsigned int __invalid_size_argument;
#define TYPECHECK(t)( sizeof(t) == sizeof(t[1]) ? sizeof(t) :
__invalid_size_argument )
static int arr[] =
1 - 100 of 877 matches
Mail list logo
