On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:11 AM, Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 11:14:14AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Jack Howarth wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 02:30:25PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> >> I get the following build failure on i386-apple-darwin8.11.1.
>> >
Epeidi ta pragmata einai polu sovara kai i katastasi tou Dimitri krisimi,
8a parakalousame osous exoun
omada aimatos 0- (miden arnitiko) kmporoun na dwsoun aima na perasoun apo
ena apo ola ta
nosokomeia tis xwras dinontas to onoma k to nosokomeio sto opoio paei to
aima.
Gia ton Dimitri Xourmouzia
Epeidi ta pragmata einai polu sovara kai i katastasi tou Dimitri krisimi,
8a parakalousame osous exoun
omada aimatos 0- (miden arnitiko) kmporoun na dwsoun aima na perasoun apo
ena apo ola ta
nosokomeia tis xwras dinontas to onoma k to nosokomeio sto opoio paei to
aima.
Gia ton Dimitri Xourmouzia
Hi Ross,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 27.11.2008 23:36:22:
> Kai Tietz writes:
> >Well, you mean the SEH tables on stack.
>
> No, I mean the ABI required unwind information.
So you speak about .pdata and .xdata. Well, those aren't implemented.
First step would be to teach gas to generate those
"Cheng bin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1 : At the end of that makefile , There is a section noted as
> "Regenerating top level configury".
> It is clear what it do, but for what? Where is this piece of
> code used in building procedure?
Those pieces of code are used by developers if and
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20081128 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20081128/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hi all,
I want to use GCC to categorise "functional purity" in C++. My
definition will differ from classic functional purity. In particular:
A function is considered pure if it makes no changes to existing
memory or program state. There may be a few exceptions to this rule
such as for new/malloc i
Kai Tietz writes:
>Hmm, yes and no. First the exception handler uses the .pdata and .xdata
>section for checking throws. But there is still the stack based exception
>mechanism as for 32-bit IIRC.
No. The mechanism is completely different. The whole point of the unwind
tables is to remove the
When categorising a functions purity i also would like to identify the
cause of the impurity. In particular for a function that is impure i
want to categorise the impurity cause as:
* modifies global state
* modifies a function parameter
* modifies the object state (this is an extension of the fun
(Configuration: x86_64, GCC 4.2.3 base line)
I've run into a problem where GCSE decides to kill a
conditional jump instruction because it thinks that the
result is always false. This happens when GCSE decides
to propagate a constant that is "narrowed" [the original
mode of the constant is word_mo
On 11/28/08 16:02:11, Gary Funck wrote:
>
> I'd think that somewhere in there gen_lowpart() needs to
> be called.
I posted a suggested patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01466.html
which fixes the reported problem.
I have recently been able to put in a few hours toward my restrictive
exception specification warning mechanic.
I have it warning me correctly on very basic regular code with throw,
try/catch, function calls and exception specifications.
It's also activated by -Wres (restrictive exception specifica
It took me quite some time to figure out how to browse the different
types of trees that I am interested in.
There are still many types and components that I will need later to
finish my restrictive exception specification warning mechanic.
I've tried dumping trees but the format of the dumps isn'
13 matches
Mail list logo
