2009/12/31 Weddington, Eric :
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Hutchinson [mailto:andrewhutchin...@cox.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:34 PM
>> To: Richard Guenther
>> Cc: Dave Korn; Rafael Espindola; GCC Development; Weddington,
>> Eric; Denis Chertykov
>> Subject: Re
Hi all,
Simple testcase, using h...@155680.
$ cat badwarn.cpp
extern void bar (void);
int foo (void) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
int
foo (void)
{
while (1)
{
bar ();
}
}
$ g++-4 -c badwarn.cpp -Wall
Hi,
I'm trying to build a combined tree following the instructions of
http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html, and I get this failure:
/bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I.
-I../../combined/bfd -I. -I../../combined/bfd
-I../../combined/bfd/../include -DBINDIR='"/usr/
OK, I filed a bug to trace it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42671
thanks
Guozhi
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 18:26 +, Paul Brook wrote:
>> On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Carrot Wei wrote:
>> > So thumb2 can also use the instr
On 2010-01-10, at 00:31, Dave Korn wrote:
> Simple testcase, using h...@155680.
>
>
> $ cat badwarn.cpp
>
> extern void bar (void);
> int foo (void) __attribute__ ((__noreturn__));
>
> int
> foo (void)
> {
> while (1)
>
On 01/09/2010 12:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
This is with gcc SVN revision 155740, and src checked out yesterday
(top of src/Changelog is the fix from Kaveh and FX for gcc PR42424).
Not knowing a thing about libtool, I hope someone can tell me what's
wrong here;-)
src and gcc's libtool are o
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 01/09/2010 12:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> This is with gcc SVN revision 155740, and src checked out yesterday
>> (top of src/Changelog is the fix from Kaveh and FX for gcc PR42424).
>>
>> Not knowing a thing about libtool, I hope so
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 4:17 AM, Ross Smith wrote:
> On 2010-01-10, at 00:31, Dave Korn wrote:
>
>> Simple testcase, using h...@155680.
>>
>>
>> $ cat badwarn.cpp
>>
>> extern void bar (void);
>> int foo (void) __attribute__ (
On 01/09/2010 04:48 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 6:26 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/09/2010 12:16 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
This is with gcc SVN revision 155740, and src checked out yesterday
(top of src/Changelog is the fix from Kaveh and FX for gcc PR42424).
Not knowing a th
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 03:26:33PM CET:
>
> Binutils should adopt GCC's libtool.m4, ltmain.sh, lt~obsolete.m4,
> ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltversion.m4 and src should rerun autoconf
> on all of its scripts (CCing gdb, newlib and cygwin mailing lists).
I just pinged that very
H.J. Lu wrote:
> It is caused by revision 138140:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2008-07/msg00852.html
Thanks for finding that HJ! This is now PR42674.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42674
cheers,
DaveK
I noticed while filing a PR that we have a keyword for:
non-weakOnly affects targets which do not support weak symbols.
I'd like to ask (Dan?) if we can add a new one along similar lines:
non-elf Only affects non-ELF targets.
As an inevitable side-effect of the fact that
This dwarf code started appearing since this patch:
r145293 | jakub | 2009-03-30 14:35:03 + (Mon, 30 Mar 2009) | 11 lines
PR debug/39563
* c-decl.c (struct c_binding): Add locus field.
(bind): Ad
On 01/09/10 12:39:55, Nenad Vukicevic wrote:
> This dwarf code started appearing since this patch:
Here's the GCC bug report that led to this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39563
It references a GDB fix as well:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-03/threads.html#00595
h
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 22:01:54 +0100, Gary Funck wrote:
> On 01/09/10 12:39:55, Nenad Vukicevic wrote:
> > This dwarf code started appearing since this patch:
>
> Here's the GCC bug report that led to this patch:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39563
Such DIEs duplicities are being tr
We used GCC regression testing to pin point PR39563 when
multiple (but not equal) definitions started appearing in
dwarf code. We used the head version of GCC, gcc-4.5.20091224
to be precise, for testing this abnormally.
I also saw appearance of DIEs duplicates you mention in PR 39524
in the foll
Hello,
I don't want to reopen the long-rumbling discussion about what gcc ought to
/want/ to do; I'd just like to know if warning in this case is indeed what it
wants to do. The standard definition of IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL looks a bit like
this:
#define IN6_ARE_ADDR_EQUAL(a, b) \
((
17 matches
Mail list logo
