On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
On 8/21/21 10:19 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[...]
You should file missed optimizations into gcc bugzilla where they can be
seen any time.
You should better implement such missing optimisations your users
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
[ 2bugzilla | !2bugzilla ]
>> You (and everybody else) if free to use GCC bugzilla.
>> Everybody and me is but also free NOT to use GCC bugzilla.
>>
>> Stefan
>
> Yes, you are free not to use the GCC Bugzilla. And GCC developer
On 8/23/21 3:46 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Gabriel Ravier wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
> [ 2bugzilla | !2bugzilla ]
>
>>> You (and everybody else) if free to use GCC bugzilla.
>>> Everybody and me is but also free NOT to use GCC bugzilla.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>
>> Yes, you
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
> On 8/23/21 3:46 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>> JFTR: do you consider your wild speculations to be on-topic here?
>
> I suppose I should apologize: I did not intend to make any accusations
> here.
No need to, I can stand a little heat.
[...]
> I also had been rather ange
David,
Many of the analyzer tests fail on windows because they hardcode in the
typedef of size_t to be unsigned long. This is not a platform independent
definition, though, and is wrong for 64 bit windows. This causes extra
warnings that all of the functions using size_t arguments are wrong,
becau
On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 09:52 -1000, NightStrike wrote:
> David,
>
> Many of the analyzer tests fail on windows because they hardcode in
> the
> typedef of size_t to be unsigned long. This is not a platform
> independent
> definition, though, and is wrong for 64 bit windows. This causes
> extra
> wa
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 09:52 -1000, NightStrike wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Many of the analyzer tests fail on windows because they hardcode in
> > the
> > typedef of size_t to be unsigned long. This is not a platform
> > independent
> > defini
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:16 PM NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> > Which tests are failing, specifically?
Here's the full list of all 37 failures that fail for any reason:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/dot-output.c dg-check-dot dot-output.c.state-purge.dot
FAI
Hi.
I recently started using GCC for compiling a bare-metal application for
the ESA S390X architecture, called UDOS.
I have to say that the EBCDIC support is amazing for GCC, and i don't
really know of it's usage outside of experiments or "theorical" field.
However i've noticed that on func
