Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually...
AS It doesn't have to be short: -Wdefault-warnings.
I haven't looked at all of the replies since I posted, and I *had*
forgotten about -Wextra (I can't even remember how many years it has
been since I last read that section of
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean warning already, e.g. it's -Wall and not -Wall-warnings.
--
Eric Botcazou
2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though, since -W is
supposed to mean warning already, e.g. it's -Wall and
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:07 AM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote:
2012年4月10日15:26 Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com:
Something like -Wdefault-warnings is a reasonable choice, for the
reasons already mentioned in this sub-thread.
Purists will find that -Wdefault-warnings is redundant though,
GCC does warn if returning a pointer to a local variable (stack memory).
But there are alot of more cases where GCC could possibly warn,
eg. when references are made to local variables or stack memory.
See this attached example code.
GCC warns for first case, but not the others.
I think
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp, and one for
gimple stmts rooted at GimpInst.
1) For IR browsing,
*) all the macro accessors
I will now start looking into the second problem,
2) The 'X' lines in the ALI files are not what they should be.
This is due to the fact that Lib.Xref.Generate_(Definition|Reference)
is
called during semantic analysis. However, when I discover that a
tree was already built for a main
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
using C++, though the two could be bundled
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Xinliang David Li davi...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt ber...@codesourcery.com
wrote:
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
So -
hey gcc everything will fall into place if you want it to
http://www.cnbc13online.com
hey gcc you really should get involved in this http://www.cnbc28web.com/finance/
hey gcc i have no more boundaries http://www.cnbc29news.com
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
*) gcc implementation has lots of hard coded TREE_OPERAND (exp, nn)
e.g.
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
exp-as_mem_access().get_base() ...
exp-as_mem_acesss().get_address() -- produces
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 20:26, Gerald Pfeifer ger...@pfeifer.com wrote:
Done for i386-unknown-freebsd10.0 (GCC 4.2 as system compiler).
No problems.
Thanks!
Diego.
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
challenging mainly due to printf. Kai added a lot of support for
handling whacky windows printfs, and we were
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against -Wdefault: common
also has a special commonly (ahem :) used
Hi,
I have added two entries:
alpha64-dec-openvms - currently as failed. I still have to investigate the
support of weak symbols by the assembler
ia64-hp-openvms - pass. But it requires some patches for Ada.
Tristan.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
If you see a missing target
On 4/10/12 8:41 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
I have added two entries:
alpha64-dec-openvms - currently as failed. I still have to investigate the
support of weak symbols by the assembler
ia64-hp-openvms - pass. But it requires some patches for Ada.
Thanks. If the alpha64 failure is due
On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
fill-in the table entries of the targets that you
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
challenging mainly due to printf.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com wrote:
On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com wrote:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the
On 04/05/2012 03:21 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Oh, wow. Really? That's a big change. Time to be brave, I guess,
but I very much like the idea of a gcc that does just what
On Apr 10, 2012, at 3:07 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 4/10/12 8:41 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
I have added two entries:
alpha64-dec-openvms - currently as failed. I still have to investigate the
support of weak symbols by the assembler
ia64-hp-openvms - pass. But it requires some
On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Really? Such as what?
Such as I wrote a
On 4/10/12 9:27 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Do these have to be tested as native compilers or cross compilers?
It doesn't really matter. As long as stage 1 is built with the host C++
compiler, either type of build should be fine.
Diego.
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
The argument is that we should enable the warnings by default because
it makes gcc more competitive. But that only makes gcc more
competitive if enabling these kinds of warnings by default is an
advantage. However, we haven't established that -Wall by
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
gcc warning-wise for the
Tested x86_64-apple-darwin10, pdp11-aout -- both pass.
paul
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com
wrote:
On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
Generally
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
i386-pc-solaris2.10 just passed, although I had several
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
To be honest, all of those sound fine to me...
bike-sheddin',
-miles
at the risk of more bike sheds: -Wcommon ?
To use a variant of your own counterargument against
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:00 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++
compilers. Thanks.
If you see a missing target that should be tested, by all means, add
it
On 4/10/12 9:59 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
Tested x86_64-apple-darwin10, pdp11-aout -- both pass.
Thanks.
Diego.
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
Currently, they all use versions of g++
Hi,
This patch for x86-64 psABI adds document for STT_GNU_IFUNC and
R_X86_64_IRELATIVE. It has been implemented on Linux/x86-64 for
more than a year. Please add it to x86-64 psABI.
Thanks.
--
H.J.
ifunc-spec.patch
Description: Binary data
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
*) gcc implementation has lots of hard coded TREE_OPERAND (exp, nn)
e.g.
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Currently, they all use versions of g++ 4.4, but I could give it a try
with different versions of Sun/Oracle Studio CC.
They should all fail, versions up to 12.2 because of CC bugs (reported to
Oracle and fixed in 12.3 I think), and version 12.3 at
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incrementally,
but the GCC community probably will not see much benefit until the
transition is complete. That also means developers asserting benefits
need to be
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
*) gcc implementation has lots of hard coded TREE_OPERAND (exp, nn)
e.g.
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
On 4/10/12 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohndje@gmail.com wrote:
Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incrementally,
but the GCC community probably will not see much benefit until the
transition is complete. That also means
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Currently, they all use versions of g++ 4.4, but I could give it a try
with different versions of Sun/Oracle Studio CC.
They should all fail, versions up to 12.2 because of CC bugs (reported to
Oracle and fixed
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073575
I think that was it, but I can't remember
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp, and one for
gimple stmts
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_.
Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more used to the
existing way and the new style does not match your
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073575
I
I am trying to resubscribe to the various GCC mailing lists with my new address
and the
web based subscribe doesn't seem to be working. Has anyone else noticed this
problem?
While at http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html, I tried to subscribe my new address
(sell...@mips.com)
to the digest form of
On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (ab || cd),
which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
write too many parentheses in ((ab)||(cd)) which
On 4/10/12 12:28 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse marc.gli...@inria.fr writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies
On Tuesday 10 of April 2012 10:46:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp, and one for
gimple stmts rooted at
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
What is the root cause of the annoyance? Mixing macros and inline
functions does not sound good, but using deeply nested macros do not
seem to help the debugging situation either.
That when stepping through code in the
On 4/10/12 12:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinekja...@redhat.com wrote:
What is the root cause of the annoyance? Mixing macros and inline
functions does not sound good, but using deeply nested macros do not
seem to help the debugging situation
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Michael Matz m...@suse.de wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_.
Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:24 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_.
Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:39 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Not to mention it is very questionable if the above stuff is more readable
than what we currently have.
The above is just quickly cooked up examples. A carefully
Michael Matz m...@suse.de writes:
syntactic noise without any whitespace. Quite frankly, how anyone could
ever say that
exp-as_component_ref().get_field()
is easier to read/write/use than
GET_FIELD_DECL (exp)
C vs C++ is not the same argument as style A vs style B. Your argument
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 09:22:56AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy
Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
completion tools. It seems to me that with such a tool it's much easier
to navigate from exp to the field, than having to scan through a much
larger number of accessor functions / macros (GET_*). The former
example starts at
Tests pass for xtensa-unknown-elf on 64-bit linux with host gcc 4.6.3.
Dave Weatherford
we...@tensilica.com
On 10/04/2012 17:24, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
exp-as_component_ref().get_field() ..
Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _horrible_.
Specifics please. It is _horrible_ because you are more used to the
existing
On 10/04/2012 17:41, Paweł Sikora wrote:
On Tuesday 10 of April 2012 10:46:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp,
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 19:59 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
completion tools. It seems to me that with such a tool it's much easier
to navigate from exp to the field, than having to scan through a much
larger number of accessor
2012/4/10 Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com:
On 10/04/2012 17:41, Paweł Sikora wrote:
On Tuesday 10 of April 2012 10:46:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two
It is my pleasure to announce the MELT plugin 0.9.5 release candidate 3 for GCC
4.6 or
4.7.
The release candidate 3 of MELT plugin 0.9.5 is still perhaps buggy but is
available from
http://gcc-melt.org/melt-0.9.5rc3-plugin-for-gcc-4.6-or-4.7.tar.gz as a gzipped
tar
archive of 4476348 bytes
Or are you really saying that the number of characters determines how
quickly/easily a brain can remember/find something like an API
item/keyword/...? If so, and if we assume that GET, FIELD, and DECL are
the most likely (sub-)parts of function names shouldn't it be G_F_D
(exp) then? ;)
The
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 23:12 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Or are you really saying that the number of characters determines how
quickly/easily a brain can remember/find something like an API
item/keyword/...? If so, and if we assume that GET, FIELD, and DECL are
the most likely (sub-)parts
Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com writes:
I hate to bring this up, but in my personal experience, getting started
with LLVM was _much_ easier than with GCC. LLVM is a much newer
codebase, so that's an advantage unrelated to the language.
I dunno, I've some experience with LLVM as well, and I
2012/4/5 Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com
I will be, after the switch to C++ is done. Pedro, if you do have a
copyright assignment, feel free to start working on this. I suggest
creating a branch for this (I can handle that today). If you need
forms for the copyright assignment, let me
On 04/10/2012 11:39 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com writes:
I hate to bring this up, but in my personal experience, getting started
with LLVM was _much_ easier than with GCC. LLVM is a much newer
codebase, so that's an advantage unrelated to the language.
I dunno,
On 4/10/12 6:04 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
2012/4/5 Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com
I will be, after the switch to C++ is done. Pedro, if you do have a
copyright assignment, feel free to start working on this. I suggest
creating a branch for this (I can handle that today). If you need
forms
I can't derive a definition of token from your example that seems
meaningful. It can't be parser tokens I assume, because you split
GET_FIELD_DECL (but why in 2 not 3?).
FIELD_DECL is a single object, see tree.def.
Following another comment in the thread, what are the concepts you'd
like
In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even
ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up
with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead
of helping anyone can only lead to confusion. I don't see anyone
committing to
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Eric Botcazou ebotca...@adacore.com wrote:
In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even
ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up
with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead
of
On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we
have two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp,
and one for gimple stmts rooted at GimpInst.
On 4/10/12, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 9, 2012 Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote:
On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source
On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote:
That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep
enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them really
should be at least by default considered just as normal statements
(e.g. glibc heavily uses artificial attribute for those,
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng amker.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
I am testing a patch to sink load of memory to proper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
Bug #: 52923
Summary: Warn if making external references to local stack
memory
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #3 from scott at smedleyfamily dot net 2012-04-10 07:45:58 UTC ---
Hi Andrew,
Works fine - see below.
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.
Scott. :)
lcas-el6build1 cat ! test.cc
#include string.h
#include stdio.h
int
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
07:52:39 UTC ---
This implies the /usr/local/bin/gcc compiler you're using was not built on
SL6.1, or was built against an older glibc
I've had exactly this error when trying
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
07:59:40 UTC ---
These all need to have some kind of flow analysis going on (the return one is
the only one which does not which is why we warn already).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52923
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
08:03:13 UTC ---
See also PR 49974 requesting the same thing for C++
and PR 51270 and PR 44859 are similar but for temporaries
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #5 from scott at smedleyfamily dot net 2012-04-10 08:13:44 UTC ---
H, you are right. I was compiling gcc with a version of gcc built on Centos
5.6. (though I compiled Andrew's test program with a different native
version)
I would
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Bug #: 52924
Summary: Using an std::function object as deleter of shared_ptr
in C++0x mode does not compile
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Bug #: 52925
Summary: [4.5/4.6 Regression] var-tracking never terminates
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
08:40:29 UTC ---
Created attachment 27124
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27124
preprocessed source
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52922
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
09:11:03 UTC ---
No, in general you can't use GCC built for one target on a different target.
What I do is just build the same version of GCC with the exact same
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52887
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-10
09:12:39 UTC ---
we might need an explicit instantiation of that type in libstdc++.so, I'll
investigate
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52917
--- Comment #3 from freunddeslichts at web dot de 2012-04-10 09:54:28 UTC ---
Ok, I didn't know about the defect report and resolution yet.
I must admit that I quite like the int() syntax.
I added a remark about the defect and a short example to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52924
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||rejects-valid
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52916
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52925
Bart Van Assche bart.vanassche at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
1 - 100 of 290 matches
Mail list logo
