warning: #import is a deprecated GCC extension

The darwin-specific gcc.dg/cpp/subframework1.c -fno-show-column test case is failing under gcc trunk for the excessive errors test because we now get warnings... warning: #import is a deprecated GCC extension Is there a particular way to modify an excessive errors test case to have a particula

Warning : 'model' attribute directive ignored

I've declared some macros in my target description file to add more attributes to it. When I built it, everything was OK and file cc1.exe was created. But when I use attributes in my C source file. For example : int x __attribute__ ((model ("small))); and use file cc1.exe to compile, there i

Re: Make error when use SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS macro

Oh yes, it's my mistake. I've got some grammar mistake in my code, so it didn't run. Thank you . --- Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 01:43:50AM -0800, Dong > Phuong wrote: > > > > In the file target.c, I declare > > SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to add mo

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Results for 4.4.0 20081106 (experimental) [trunk revision 141636] (GCC) testsuite on m32c-unknown-elf]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Martin Jambor wrote: > >From the logs I see that the testsuite probably uses a cross-compiled > gcc? How do you configure gcc to get such a beats? See . (Don't ever change anything in the hardlinked /combined tree, though and don't tr

Re: apply maintainer?

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 09:27:32AM +0800, Eric Fisher wrote: > Ah, maybe I should say contributor. See http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html

Re: apply maintainer?

Ah, maybe I should say contributor. Best regards, Eric 2008/11/12 Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/11/11 Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Hello, >> >> Anyone could tell how to be a gcc maintainer? Is there any >> requirement? Actually, my previous work are all not based on the

Re: zero sized structs

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 03:52:01PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:16AM +0100, nadult wrote: > > Hello, i have some problems with empty (almost) structures containing > > zero-sized arrays: > > > > struct Zero { int value[0]; }; > > int main() { > > std::cout << "sizeof(

Re: zero sized structs

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:23:16AM +0100, nadult wrote: > Hello, i have some problems with empty (almost) structures containing > zero-sized arrays: > > struct Zero { int value[0]; }; > int main() { > std::cout << "sizeof(Zero)==" << sizeof(Zero) << '\n'; > return 0; > } > > The output i

zero sized structs

Hello, i have some problems with empty (almost) structures containing zero-sized arrays: struct Zero { int value[0]; }; int main() { std::cout << "sizeof(Zero)==" << sizeof(Zero) << '\n'; return 0; } The output i get for every g++ i compile it on is: sizeof(Zero)==0 Because of that i can

gcc-4.2-20081112 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.2-20081112 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20081112/ 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

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On 11/12/08, James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:43:40PM -0800, James Dennett wrote: > >> (There are secondary uses of unions for type punning. Most such uses > >> are not valid portable

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:43:40PM -0800, James Dennett wrote: >> (There are secondary uses of unions for type punning. Most such uses >> are not valid portable C++, but g++ supports them because they're so >> common in real c

Re: [ping] Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:40 AM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ping? Is this the right thing to do? I'd like to get this (and a few > other m32c bugs) resolved before the next release. I don't think this is a suitable general solution. Can you instead try the attached which again t

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 08:43:40PM -0800, James Dennett wrote: > (There are secondary uses of unions for type punning. Most such uses > are not valid portable C++, but g++ supports them because they're so > common in real code.) On the contrary: the uses of unions for type-punning, while not port

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:53:54PM +1000, Mark Tall wrote: > Hello, > > I've come across an oddity in C++, involving anonymous unions and > const variables. Neither of the two classes below will compile using > gcc 4.3.0. Is this a bug in gcc or the C++ standard itself ? > > class my_class_1 >

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On 11/12/08, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mark Tall schrieb: > > On 12/11/2008, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If all members of the union are const, why don't you just > > > make the union itself const? > > > > The const for the union seems to be ignored > > I'd say, that

"__throw_logic_error" abort, but print no error message out

Hello the file in bits/basic_string.tcc call it. template template _CharT* basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>:: _S_construct(_InIterator __beg, _InIterator __end, const _Alloc& __a, forward_iterator_tag) { #ifndef _GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING if (__beg

"__throw_logic_error" abort, but print no error message out

Hello the file in bits/basic_string.tcc call it. template template _CharT* basic_string<_CharT, _Traits, _Alloc>:: _S_construct(_InIterator __beg, _InIterator __end, const _Alloc& __a, forward_iterator_tag) { #ifndef _GLIBCXX_FULLY_DYNAMIC_STRING if (__beg

Re: New branch: pretty-ipa

Great! Thanks for doing this. I would've offered using the LTO branch, we have several patches that will be pushed out at the next stage1. But if you prefer it this way, we can just import patches from pretty-ipa. Diego.

New branch: pretty-ipa

Hi, with LTO getting closer it is obvious that IPA infrastructure needs work and also is getting more interesting ;) I don't think it makes sense to do all the work on LTO branch that contains a lot of temporary stuff, so I've created pretty-ipa branch that unlike LTO branch is targetted to merge

[ping] Re: m32c: pointer math vs sizetype again

Ping? Is this the right thing to do? I'd like to get this (and a few other m32c bugs) resolved before the next release. > This seems to work, with a suitable extendhipsi2 pattern for m32c: > > Index: expr.c > === > --- expr.c(

Re: global/df dropping a needed set?

Never mind, I figured this one out.

Re: apply maintainer?

2008/11/11 Eric Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hello, > > Anyone could tell how to be a gcc maintainer? Is there any > requirement? Actually, my previous work are all not based on the gcc > trunk. So no patch submitted. Anyway, it's cool to contribute :-) Do you actually mean a maintainer or a cont

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

Mark Tall schrieb: On 12/11/2008, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If all members of the union are const, why don't you just make the union itself const? The const for the union seems to be ignored I'd say, that's the real bug, at least from my point of view. I don't know, if t

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On 12/11/2008, René Bürgel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If all members of the union are const, why don't you just make the union > itself const? The const for the union seems to be ignored (code below). The original reason behind the union shenanigans was to provide a compile-time alias to anothe

RE: H8SX: Bit instructions for review

Hi Jeff, >> create a GCC 4.5 pending patches PR and attach the updated patch to >> that PR Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestions and support. GCC-4.5 pending patches PR is already created at the following link: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37515 The bug repor

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

If all members of the union are const, why don't you just make the union itself const? class my_class_2 { const union { int x; int y; }; my_class_2() : x(0) {} }; -- René Bürgel Software Engineer Unicontrol Systemtechnik GmbH OT Dittersbach Sachsenburger Weg 34 09669 Frankenbe

Make error when use SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS macro

In the file target.c, I declare SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS to add more command options for my target : -- #ifndef SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS #define SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS #endif #define OVERRIDE_OPTIONS

Re: bug in GCC or C++ standard ?

On 11/11/08, James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 8:04 PM, Mark Tall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/11/2008, James Dennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In a union only one field can be active at one time, hence > > > initializing more than one makes no sense