: Adding a new gcc dir
Sent: 06 Mar '07 16:32
Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
c99 constructs?
Or all gcc code should be built like this??
This is a feature. gcc can
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Nick
Effectively that's what
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the full
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second
On 07 March 2007 15:05, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second
compile
On 07 March 2007 15:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Moreover, for some reason when using malloc, a lot of poisonous malloc
warning come up which are solved by using xmalloc instead, which is
another thing I cannot figure out. What is better in xmalloc than
malloc?
Take a look, the source for it
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Maybe, but I consider rejecting
On 3/7/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
using the basic GCC compiler to get the
On 07 March 2007 16:16, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 3/7/07, Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it time to offer second-strap level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As explained: because it makes it impossible for users running old systems
with pre-C99 compilers to build gcc and thereby excludes them from the world
of free software, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.
Well, I surely
On 07 March 2007 17:44, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
questioning Paul why he said: I consider rejecting mixed
code/declarations to be a feature
I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
containing //, but
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into head/gcc/Makefile.in but it seem quite
cluttered and I
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
It's using these flags by default:
-W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
c99 constructs?
Or all gcc code should be built like this??
This is a feature. gcc can be bootstrapped using an arbitrary c90 compiler.
The warning
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
It's using these flags by default:
-W -Wall
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
I wonder where it has gone to.
Any suggestions ??
1. Always pipe the build output to a file so you
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
I wonder where it has gone to.
Any suggestions ??
1.
On 06 March 2007 20:12, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
I wonder
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I advise that when adding a pass, regardless of whether the code can fit
in a single file or is large enough to need to use several separate files,
it's consistent to put all the files that implement the pass in the main 'gcc'
source directory.
21 matches
Mail list logo
