On 1/30/22 11:58, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 10:50:56AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
We could put a trap instruction at the end of the function though, which
would make the result a bit less arbitrary.
I've come around to thinking that's preferable for cases like this.
On 1/30/22 12:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Meta-comment: a subject line of "Enquiry" is very vague, and most
commonly used by spammers and phishers. Your enquiry is about
undefined behaviour due to a missing return, which would have been a
much better subject.
Indeed. Did not realize that.
Before creating a bug report, I want to check with the GCC community
(all the more that checking that the problem has not yet been reported
is complicated at leat for me).
The following (admitedly buggy) program generates a segmentation
violation on fedora 35 (this is with g++ 11.2.1 20211203
On 6/3/21 5:10 PM, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| From: Martin Liška
| Which we recommend in the ection Filtering here:
| https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
Thanks for the useful information.
That document suggests:
* ^List-Id: .*<.*.gcc.gnu.org>$
Surely this should be:
* ^List-Id:
On 9/9/19 1:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
frepo
C++ ObjC++ Deprecated
Deprecated in GCC 10. This switch has no effect.
>>>
>>> This first part looks wrong to me.
>>> "deprecated
>>> (computing) Obsolescent; said of a construct in a computing language
>>> considered old,
>>> and
On 09/12/2017 05:32 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> .On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:29 AM, Theodore Papadopoulo
> <theodore.papadopo...@inria.fr> wrote:
>> Another one that might be interesting is -funsafe-loop-optimizations.
>> In most cases people write loops assuming simple fini
Another one that might be interesting is -funsafe-loop-optimizations.
In most cases people write loops assuming simple finite loops (no
overflow). Crippling optimization for the small amount of people (system
programmers ?) that use such strange loops seems counterproductive. It
would be best if
On 11/21/2012 02:01 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Right -- gdb does not know the complete type of std::cout and
std::cerr -- try the following program with -g and invoke print, or
in the debugger -- see what you will get:
But that also suggest that the debugging experience needs for some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/11/2011 08:59 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
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
I just tried to build gcc configuring it on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
(Fedora 10) with:
configure --enable-build-with-cxx --with-arch=core2 --with-tune=core2
--prefix=/usr/local/gcc-svn/ --enable-languages=c,c++
--enable-__cxa_atexit --disable-multilib --enable-libssp
and ran into a
Richard Guenther wrote:
As commented to my last status report develop.html does not reflect
reality anymore. The following tries to adjust it carefully in
this respect.
h3Schedule/h3
-pDevelopment on our main branch will proceed in three stages. Each
-stage will be two months in
I was wondering if loops of form
for (i=0; ; i++)
a[i]
can be assumed finite because eventaully a[i] would get to unallocated
memory otherwise. This is however similar to inifinite recursion
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is definitely wrong...
Assuming a 64bit processor and i to
diego sandoval wrote:
Hi everybody,
I just started working with openMP, i installed first gcc-4.2.3 and
then gcc-4.3.0, both of them having support for openMP.
I tried a code to calculate the product \pi*\e. When i compile the
code with gcc (both 4.2.3 and 4.3.0) withtout -fopenmp the
The piece of code attached to this mail does not compile with 4.3.0 20070113
(sorry this is rather old, but that's what I had available). The
architecture (although not relevant IMHO)
is i686-pc-linux-gnu.
[ Even though this is not relevant here, a similar error happens with
the redhat
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:51 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
from comments in the #gcc irc channel, I understood that it is not
advisable for gcc patches to use the const qualifier in function
prototypes. I would like to understand why. Apart from its main
purpose, I believed that the use of
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 08:26 -0700, trincheira wrote:
Hello Guys,
I am developing some applications that extensively uses STL. I plan to use
the
traits - iterator_traits to get information about which type do I need to
return.
Unfortunately, I've been experienced some problems to use such
This is just to let you know that the gcc-prs mailing list archives seem
to fail since June, 2004. Everything since then gives empty archives. If
the list is closed (probably subsumed by bugzilla), maybe the best is to
freeze the archive
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/
Theo.
On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 15:12 +, bangerth at dealii dot org wrote:
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2005-07-18 15:12
---
I can see how this is happening, and I believe the compiler is correct.
Take this slight modification of the code:
Sorry, it was right
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 10:02 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
int blah(int);
int func(int a, int b) {
if (b = 0) {
int c = a + b;
int count = 0;
for (int i = a; i = c; i++)
count++;
blah(count);
}
}
Yes, I understand.
I
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 10:37 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it
should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression.
[.]
In practice, we have got an handful of bugs unfixable within the
current
ABI (mostly already fixed
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 14:48 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Just a quick comment: this is *already* happening, no doubts. We have
v6 since 3.4.0...
I know (well almost) Apologies if my mail was suggesting the
opposite. As you might have noticed, I tried to avoid to make too strong
statements as
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 08:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The project I'm proposing is not to move to C++. Just to move to the
intersection of C and C++, which is what we had agreed on in previous
discussions. Someone needs to implement those decisions, that is what
I'm trying to do (of
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
Mark,
it occurred to me that asking the question you pose may use language that
is
more unfamiliar than necessary. How about this question instead -- assume
struct S { int s; };
struct X {
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:01 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-11 at 15:30 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Given the following:
struct A {
B b1;
B b2;
const B b3;
A(B b): b1(b),b2(b),b3(b) { }
};
Is the compiler
On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 14:25 +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Paul Schlie wrote:
Yes, of course, but it is the C frontent that is producing
a + (int *)-4, not me. I'm just trying to work around this...
In fact, it is c-common.c:2289 that does -4 - (int *)-4
conversion,
25 matches
Mail list logo
