On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:52:46AM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> >Now I'm off to write proposal for Google.
>
> Application draft can be found at
> http://www.cs.aau.dk/~lauras/application.txt
> I haven't submitted it yet, so I can incorporate some corrections, if
> you have any comments.
It
> Does anyone know of any tool that can help identify fallow routines?
It's not a complete solution, but it is one tool that will contribute
to your effort: Andrew Tridgell has written a script called
`findstatic.pl' (Google for it) that will tell you which functions can
be made static because the
Now I'm off to write proposal for Google.
Application draft can be found at http://www.cs.aau.dk/~lauras/application.txt
I haven't submitted it yet, so I can incorporate some corrections, if
you have any comments.
Thanks,
--
Laurynas
dear gcc:
when I try to install gcc 4.0 at my apple mac os X , 7.9.0 (by uname
-r),
when I ./configure
it reply error as no acceptable cc found in $PATH
if that need c compiler be install, please tell where, (if binary ,
please indicate the one not through MAC installer)?
thanks your help i
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:50:54PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> >I suspect Cygwin is blameless here. The runtime page size detection
> >would probably work better (but it's slower).
>
> How much would be slower that, if it needs to be executed once per
> invocation? Looks like it's the way t
Or just use 64K pages on Cygwin. It sounds like that's what's going
on. We may be fetching the page size incorrectly from the system.
In fact, see how bogus the code currently in ggc-zone.c is for the page
size?
Yes...
I suspect Cygwin is blameless here. The runtime page size detection
woul
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 10:26:20PM +0200, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> - Cygwin's mmap() is still buggy. There was a lot of work on it
> previously, the last message I could find on the subject was
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-06/msg00521.html . It
> suggested, that Cygwin's mmap() maybe
2006/5/4, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
In the long run, I don't think we really want to be using garbage
collection at all.
[...]
All of the above should not in way be read as an argument against using
the zone collector -- it's actually an argument in favor of improving
the zone collec
On 06/05/06, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 4, 2006, at 4:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>struct C : A, B { /* ... */ };
>
> I am sorry to say that I don't understand the definition of struct C.
C is derived from A and B. Only valid of course in C++.
OK. This is multiple
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Neil Booth wrote:
> For the composite type, 6.2.7p3 dash 1 applies, and the composite is
> the VLA type. That VLA type is derived indirectly from an incomplete
> type, and hence subscripting that incomplete type falls foul of the
> contraint on the subscript operator.
>
> I b
Joseph S. Myers wrote:-
> > which seems reasonable based on my understanding of composite types
> > of VLA types: that either satisfies the requirements of, and therefore
> > can be taken to be, the composite type.
>
> I think the type's complete: the recursive application of the composite
> typ
On Sun, 7 May 2006, Neil Booth wrote:
> My front end, and Comeau's oneline compiler, both give a similar
> message:
>
> "/tmp/foo.c", line 10: error: expression must point to a complete type
> int r = (c1()
> ^
>
> which seems reasonable based on my understanding of composite types
>
I have built an EABI/iWMMXt Gentoo based system. The toolchain I used is
modified to add a Linux/EABI/iWMMXt target. It has been fine until I changed
my binutils from an earlier snapshot to a current version Gentoo 2.16.92,
csl-2_17-branch or CVS trunk. Now when attempting to build GCC (on the h
Committed according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-05/msg00185.html
Mircea
2006-05-07 Mircea Namolaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* opts.c (flag_see): remove its setting at -O3.
Index: opts.c
===
--- opts.c (revision
> Given that this is more than a bootstrap problem with non-default flags,
> but testsuite regressions for gfortran and SPEC failures on a primary
> platform, I think this falls under GCC's 48 hour rule. This simply
> formalizes your phrase "short time frame" above, and means that it
you're
> unl
15 matches
Mail list logo
