On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Given that the set of posted solaris test results for trunk during the
> last four months barely requires two hands:
>
> 2008-01
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg01474.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/
Indeed, thanks!
What was the issue?
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Doing a build of gcc from revision 134693 with
>
> The build issue should be fixed post 134776.
>
> -benjamin
>
Given that the set of posted solaris test results for trunk during the
last four months barely requires two hands:
2008-01
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg01474.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg01460.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-01/msg01460
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20080430 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20080430/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
We currently define __builtin_ia32_palignr as
long long __builtin_ia32_palignr (long long, long long, int)
But it really should be
v1di __builtin_ia32_palignr (v1di, v1di, int)
Fix it won't affect sources which use intrinsics defined
in tmmintrin.h. But it may affect codes which use
__buil
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
We have been bouncing ideas for a new mechanism to describe the behavior
of function calls so that optimizers can be more aggressive at call
sites. Currently, GCC supports the notion of pure/impure,
const/non-const, but that is not enough for variou
Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 10:24 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> > 5. What is deprecated: Is there any time-effective way to identify
>> > constructs, header files, macros, variable and functions that are
>> > "dep
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 05:59:54PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> The warnings I added for the CERT advisory say "assuming pointer
> wraparound does not occur" You are running into one of the older
> signed overflow warnings.
>
Oh, sorry for that oversight. It has started happening (wh
Hello,
I'm working on a big project in C code, and I want to profile it so I
used gcc with the options -ftest-coverage and -fprofile-arcs, and gcov
to analyze the results. It works very well but on the whole project
and the whole execution !!
My question is :
Is it possible to start and stop profi
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 10:24 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tim Josling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 5. What is deprecated: Is there any time-effective way to identify
> > constructs, header files, macros, variable and functions that are
> > "deprecated".
>
> Not really. We try not to leave
Ang Way Chuang wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Ang Way Chuang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
abc.a = abc.a++ % abc.b;
You are assigning to abc.a twice without a sequence point inbetween so
this code is undefined as the order of evaluation of expressions
withou
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Thanks for the speedy reply. But why this code:
int a = 17, b = 16;
a = a++ % 16;
Huh? Now you got me confused. Since it is an undefined behaviour, gcc
is free to whatever it likes.
Sure, but if you ask gcc to signal a warning, it is supposed to do so.
Thanks for the speedy reply. But why this code:
int a = 17, b = 16;
a = a++ % 16;
Huh? Now you got me confused. Since it is an undefined behaviour, gcc is
free to whatever it likes.
Sure, but if you ask gcc to signal a warning, it is supposed to do so.
:-) It is a bug that
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Ang Way Chuang wrote:
Ang Way Chuang wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Ang Way Chuang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the speedy reply. But why this code:
int a = 17, b = 16;
a = a++ % 16;
results in a = 2 then? I think
14 matches
Mail list logo
