Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Miles Bader
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes: And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most important ones). No. clang's diagnostics for C++ are much much better than GCC's. Obviously GCC's can improve,

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread James Dennett
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Miles Bader mi...@gnu.org wrote: Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes: And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most important ones). No.  clang's diagnostics

Re: RFH - Testing targets for the switch to C++

2012-04-12 Thread Sebastian Huber
Hello Diego, what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think there is no need for a bootstrap? -- Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany Phone : +49 89 18 90 80 79-6 Fax : +49 89 18 90 80 79-9 E-Mail :

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Fabien Chêne
2012/4/11 Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com: Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes: 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

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Chiheng Xu
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com wrote: 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

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote: I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || -- in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Miles Bader
Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com writes: I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || -- in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is really

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 5:55 AM, Miles Bader wrote: ... and it's quite possible that such bugs resulting from adding parentheses means that the programmer fixing the code didn't actually know the right precedence! or that the layout (which is what in practice we should rely on to make things clear with

Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote: On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently. The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was written. It

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Pedro Alves
On 04/12/2012 11:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Manu has filed lots of bugs in bugzilla with specific comparisons of GCC's diagnostics to Clang's. I'll start a page on the GCC wiki but I hope others will add to it. The people asking to see results should be the ones doing the comparisons

[PATCH] Add StarPU on extensions.html

2012-04-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, As suggested by Gerald Pfeifer. Thanks, Ludo’. --- extensions.html.~1.51.~ 2011-09-28 01:45:17.0 +0200 +++ extensions.html 2012-04-12 12:11:09.0 +0200 @@ -26,6 +26,19 @@ maintainers, not our mailing lists./p to ease development of GCC plugin-like extensions./p +h2a

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as standard usually means something quite specific

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Fabien Chêne
2012/4/12 Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com: On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote: I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of  and || -- in the

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Chiheng Xu chiheng...@gmail.com wrote: The reason why GCC's code is very hard to hack is not simple. In part, this is because GCC use a very old, extremely hard to understand build system. In part, this is because GCC developer are more focused on fixing bugs

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote: On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently. The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 11:35, Richard Guenther wrote: And since yesterday GCC shows t.C:2:10: error: expected ';' after class definition  class a {}          ^ t.C:6:1: error: expected ';' after struct definition  }  ^ as we now enabled -fdiagnostics-show-caret by default. Yep :-) Because of

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Andrew Haley
On 04/12/2012 10:46 AM, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote: I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of and || -- in the

Re: RFH - Testing targets for the switch to C++

2012-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: Hello Diego, what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think there is no need for a bootstrap? No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those targets. I want to decide what we should recommend as a minimum

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 4/12/12 6:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote: On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: How about a warning level? -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) -W1: default -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra I like this suggestion a lot. Indeed.

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code they'd insert parentheses for clarity. Yes, of course I 100% agree with that. But then by your definition code

Re: Proposed gcc plugin plugin API mk 2 (this time without camel case!)

2012-04-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, (Sorry for the delay.) I suppose the proposed API doesn’t cover all the needs of your Python bindings and their applications, does it? How do you plan to export the GIMPLE and tree.h APIs? Regarding iterators, there are things like: GCC_IMPLEMENT_PUBLIC_API(bool)

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Andrew Haley
On 04/12/2012 02:03 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code they'd insert parentheses for clarity. Yes, of course I 100% agree

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Maybe -Wstandard

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Sorry for the confusion: I intended to write I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code they'd insert parentheses for clarity. Using two different

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) -W1: default -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra I like this suggestion a lot. Me too! I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long hard-to-type

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) -W1: default -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra  I like this suggestion a lot. Me

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) -W1: default -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall -W3: equivalent to the current -Wall

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Andrew Haley
On 04/12/2012 03:36 PM, Robert Dewar wrote: On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code they'd insert parentheses for clarity. Using two different

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w) -W1: default

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually the greater the better or in this case the worse) which creates

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: People easily associates some ordering to

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: What is nonsensical there? But they *are* ordinal. Now? What is the order? less warnings to more warnings, what could be more ordered than that! It works just fine for -O, Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: What is nonsensical there? But they *are* ordinal. Now?  What is the order? less warnings to more warnings, what could be more ordered than that! What exactly do you

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Certainly, everything that adds to clarity (and has no runtime costs!) is desirable. But adding parentheses may not add to clarity if doing so also obfuscates the code. There is a cost to the reader due to a blizzard of syntactically redundant

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 11:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: less warnings to more warnings, what could be more ordered than that! What exactly do you put in -Wn to make it give *more* warning? I can think of a reduced number of switch that would give you more warning on a specific program without them

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of and | . There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator precedence rules in C.

Re: RFH - Testing targets for the switch to C++

2012-04-12 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On 04/12/2012 02:32 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: Hello Diego, what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think there is no need for a bootstrap? No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those targets. I want to

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote: For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes, you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-) It would even allow -Winf for the

RE: FW: is syslimits.h likely to change?

2012-04-12 Thread Mark Galeck (CW)
Thank you Ian, hopefully I will be compatible then for a long time, as Larry Wall would say at least until the heat death of the Universe. I can't ignore it :) My build system cannot handle include_next - it cannot handle the situation where you are finding a header file in one -I directory,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Pedro Alves
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear. -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2. No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimization options. Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote: For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes, you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net skribis: My feeling is that the plugin ability of GCC should help academia to work more on (that is, inside) GCC, to only to use GCC. Yes, except that, on one hand, they have a library stack with stable APIs, and on the other, an otherwise

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear. -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2. No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote: For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes, you may find

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Pedro Alves
On 04/12/2012 04:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves pal...@redhat.com wrote: On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear. -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.

Ann: MELT plugin release 0.9.5 for GCC 4.6 4.7

2012-04-12 Thread Basile Starynkevitch
Hello All It is my pleasure to announce the MELT plugin release 0.9.5 for GCC 4.6 4.7 MELT is a high-level domain specific language to extend GCC (the Gnu Compiler Collection). See http://gcc-melt.org/ for more. The MELT plugin 0.9.5 (for GCC 4.6 4.7) is available from

Re: RFH - Testing targets for the switch to C++

2012-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 4/12/12 11:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: The *-rtems4* toolchains I supply for RTEMS currently are hosted on CentOS5+6, openSUSE 11.3+12.1, Fedora 15+16+17, mingw32 and cygwin, using these OSes' native toolchains. Other folks have reported to build these toolchains under different *BSDs and

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread pcpa
Robert Dewar escreveu: On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of and | . There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator

RE: GSoC proposal: Provide optimizations feedback through post-compilation messages

2012-04-12 Thread Thibault Raffaillac
Quite lengthy but very interesting mail! It took me a while to formulate a proper reply :) Feedback can be scarce, but don't let that stop you from submitting a proposal. Either way, can you keep me informed about any progress? I might wish to help though that would probably be later in the

Wiki slowness

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to reload the page? Opening the page in a new tab shows the changes have been saved, but the page still keeps loading. Is there some kind of re-indexing going on which is incredibly inefficient? Or does the moinmoinwiki code

Re: Wiki slowness

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to reload the page? By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still spinning saying the page is loading! Opening the page in a new tab shows the changes have

Re: Wiki slowness

2012-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 4/12/12 3:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to reload the page? By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still spinning saying the page is loading! Yes.

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Tom Tromey
Diego == Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes: Diego Tom, I'm thinking of that patch on black listing functions. There was Diego also the idea of a command that would only step in the outermost Diego function call of an expression. That patch went in. The new command is called skip. I

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 4/12/12 3:40 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: Diego == Diego Novillodnovi...@google.com writes: Diego Tom, I'm thinking of that patch on black listing functions. There was Diego also the idea of a command that would only step in the outermost Diego function call of an expression. That patch went

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 11:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Two more examples, then I'll save it for a wiki page instead of the mailing list: And here it is: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 11:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Two more examples, then I'll save it for a wiki page instead of the mailing list: And here it is: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison Thanks; this is

Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8

2012-04-12 Thread Tom Tromey
Diego == Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes: Diego Nice! What version of gdb has this support? 7.4. Tom

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: There is little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-) Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version control used to have lots of files lying around called foo.final.c, foo.final.reallyfinal.c,

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Dave Korn
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*. No you don't. You said: People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually the greater the better or in this case the worse) which creates another set of

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: It would even allow -Winf for the sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings.  Or -Wover9000. Do we have bugzilla entry for that?

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Xinliang David Li
Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from this slide: http://ecn.channel9.msdn.com/events/GoingNative12/GN12Clang.pdf with trunk gcc. In some cases, gcc's warning matches that of clang but in majority of cases, gcc either emits no warnings or worse ones. The warnings

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:  There is little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it  :-)  Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version control used to have lots

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.  No you don't.  You said: People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually the

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: It would even allow -Winf for the sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings.  Or -Wover9000. Do

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has monotonically increasing version numbers, instead of just one that means this is done now. As I observed

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:  There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a world where perfection is never achieved.  That's why software has monotonically increasing version

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the observation. and nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness! I think you don't know what incompleteness is about, yes, it is nonsense, because no one can make

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Dewar de...@adacore.com wrote: On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the observation.  and nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness! I think you don't know what

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
Hi Jonathan, I think the wiki page is a great idea! Thanks for doing this. I am planning to open PRs for all the issues where GCC is worse. I think it would be nice to have even more examples where GCC is better. Examples where GCC is worse can be added to

Re: RFC: -Wall by default

2012-04-12 Thread Robert Dewar
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 22:32, Xinliang David Li wrote: Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from this slide: http://ecn.channel9.msdn.com/events/GoingNative12/GN12Clang.pdf with trunk gcc. In some cases, gcc's warning matches that of clang but in majority of cases, gcc

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Xinliang David Li
yes .. thanks, David On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 22:32, Xinliang David Li wrote: Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from this slide:

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jonathan, [] Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC interested on any of this? Would some reviewer reject patches implementing them? I suspect decisions will be based on the

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jonathan, [] Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC interested on any of this? Would some reviewer

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Jonathan, [] Of course, the major question

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of the three things: ranges, color and fix-it hints? There are many issues with color. Does your reader

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 April 2012 22:53, Xinliang David Li wrote: yes .. Excellent, thanks, and thanks for the link to the pdf, I hadn't seen it before and GCC does do pretty poorly with those examples. thanks, David On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics [Was: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8]

2012-04-12 Thread Xinliang David Li
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 22:53, Xinliang David Li wrote: yes .. Excellent, thanks, and thanks for the link to the pdf, I hadn't seen it before and GCC does do pretty poorly with those examples. The talk was given pretty

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 13 April 2012 00:17, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net wrote: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez

gcc-4.5-20120412 is now available

2012-04-12 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120412 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120412/ 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

Re: Switch statement case range

2012-04-12 Thread Rick Hodgin
I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No one responded on- or off-list, which was both surprising and confusing. Thanks! :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin --- On Sun, 4/8/12, Rick Hodgin foxmuldrs...@yahoo.com wrote: From: Rick Hodgin foxmuldrs...@yahoo.com ...I think [GCC]

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question is whether this is something that GCC wants to have. If the answer is NO, that is

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
On 13 April 2012 03:40, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote: On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question is whether this is

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: I find the color output of Clang just beautiful and, in my opinion, color support in GCC would make it a bit more beautiful and attract new users, so it is a much better use of developer's time than fixing yet

[no subject]

2012-04-12 Thread Беллочка Чмыхова
здаровчик, красавчик.)) uhusnarirw.pochtamt.ruКузичка_Кашканова моё имя там...!!) если есть желание познакомиться поближе...

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
Lawrence Crowl cr...@google.com writes: On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote: So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of the three things: ranges, color and fix-it hints? There are

Re: Updated GCC vs Clang diagnostics

2012-04-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote: I personally think it would be an excellent idea.  Even clang's C++ error messages can be long.  A simple use of color is an excellent way to draw the eye to the more important parts of the message.  If the color is not

[Bug libstdc++/29366] atomics config for sh is weird

2012-04-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29366 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING Last

[Bug target/52898] SH Target: Inefficient DImode comparisons

2012-04-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52898 --- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 06:19:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) (In reply to comment #2) I don't know about their history. -mcbranchdi is enabled by default, though. See

[Bug target/52941] SH Target: Add support for movco.l / movli.l atomics on SH4A

2012-04-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52941 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last

[Bug target/51697] SH Target: Inefficient DImode comparisons for -Os

2012-04-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51697 Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||olegendo at gcc

[Bug target/52898] SH Target: Inefficient DImode comparisons

2012-04-12 Thread olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52898 --- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 06:59:47 UTC --- (In reply to comment #4) I would propose to deprecate -mcbranchdi and -mcmpeqdi and hard-code the 'enabled' behavior, i.e. remove all the non-mcbranchdi and

[Bug libstdc++/52839] double free or corruption running tr1/.../default_weaktoshared.exe

2012-04-12 Thread torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839 torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug libstdc++/52839] double free or corruption running tr1/.../default_weaktoshared.exe

2012-04-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839 --- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 08:30:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) If we make an ABI switch at some point, should we move over to relying just on atomics and the libatomic fallbacks

[Bug libstdc++/52942] [4.7 Regression] using std::ref with a std::unordered_map fails to compile

2012-04-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52942 Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c++ |libstdc++

[Bug libstdc++/52942] [4.7 Regression] using std::ref with a std::unordered_map fails to compile

2012-04-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52942 --- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 08:46:04 UTC --- The solution would be to follow the same pattern as the other containers: templatetypename A, typename B struct Cont { struct Impl : B { A*

[Bug libstdc++/52942] [4.7 Regression] using std::ref with a std::unordered_map fails to compile

2012-04-12 Thread paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52942 Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bkoz at

[Bug libstdc++/52942] [4.7 Regression] using std::ref with a std::unordered_map fails to compile

2012-04-12 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52942 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-12 09:06:59 UTC --- Or for the hash tables, which have lots of template parameters, it would be even better to use std::tuple to get the EBO benefits

  1   2   3   4   >