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,
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
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 :
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Diego == Diego Novillo dnovi...@google.com writes:
Diego Nice! What version of gdb has this support?
7.4.
Tom
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,
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
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
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
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
здаровчик, красавчик.))
uhusnarirw.pochtamt.ruКузичка_Кашканова моё имя там...!!)
если есть желание познакомиться поближе...
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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++
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*
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
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 - 100 of 339 matches
Mail list logo
