On 22/06/11 23:25, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
On 22/06/11 17:34, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
I thought this was the same as using __attribute__((used)) on a function
declaration (which works).
DECL_PRESERVE_P(node) = 1;
seems to be what I wanted. :)
I always wondered wha
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > "H.J. Lu" writes:
> >
> >> Apparently, there is no GCC maintainer for Linux/x86 platform. I have
> >> been working on GCC, as well as binutils and C libraries, for Linux/x86
> >> over 20 years. I ported GCC, binutils and the C libra
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:50, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:47, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> That seems reasonable to me.
>>
>> Yes. I think Steven proposed this as well at some point.
>
> Alright, thanks.
>
> Un
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20110623 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20110623/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Diego Novillo writes:
> So, I think we need to re-think where to check for seen_errors().
> Bailing out too early is disabling some valid diagnostics. For
> instance,
>
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/asm-7.c:
> $ cat -n
> /home/dnovillo/g1/fix-4487457/Patch-752f00bd28e325efdfa0ac7abed22feb_branches-goo
On 06/23/2011 06:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Well, so what? This test case does not represent actual or even likely
user code. I don't think we need to contort ourselves to generate all
possible errors for erroneous input. As many errors as reasonable, yes.
All possible errors, no.
I agree
