On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Prasad Ghangal
<prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 21:15, Prasad Ghangal <prasad.ghan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 23 August 2016 at 02:56, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 00:10 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders <tbsau...@tbsaunde.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> > @@ -228,6 +228,12 @@ struct GTY(()) function {
>>>> > /* GIMPLE body for this function. */
>>>> > gimple_seq gimple_body;
>>>> >
>>>> > + /* GIMPLEFE pass to start with */
>>>> > + opt_pass *pass_startwith = NULL;
>>> I'm guessing you've only compiled in C++11 mode? because I'm pretty
>>>> > sure
>>>> > you are using a C++11 feature here (the default member value you
>>>> > assign).
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I am not getting what did you mean by C++11 mode (I am not explicitly
>>>
>>> Prasad: what compiler version are you using to build your patched gcc?
>>> My guess is that you're using gcc 6 to build.
>>>
>> I am using gcc version 5.4.0 20160609 (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.1)
>>
>>> In gcc 6 we changed the default C++ mode from -std=gnu++98
>>> to -std=gnu++14. See:
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html#gxx14
>>>
>>> I believe the syntax that Trevor spotted is only available in C++11
>>> onwards:
>>>
>>> $ cat test.cc
>>> struct foo
>>> {
>>> int field = 42;
>>> };
>>>
>>> With the default for gcc 6:
>>>
>>> $ gcc -c test.cc -std=c++14
>>>
>>> it has no problems, whereas with the default for gcc 5 and earlier:
>>>
>>> $ gcc -c test.cc -std=gnu++98
>>> test.cc:3:15: warning: non-static data member initializers only
>>> available with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11
>>> int field = 42;
>>> ^~
>>>
>> and it does give me the warning. I will try compiling on < 5 version.
>>
> I have successfully bootstrapped using gcc 4.8 version. I think while
> stage2+ builds it is putting -std=gnu++11 flag. Should I remove C++11
> syntax ?
Yes, we can't use C++ syntax generally.
Thanks,
Richard.
>
> Thanks,
> Prasad
>
>>> So it's probably worth attempting to bootstrap with an older gcc as the
>>> starting compiler.
>>>
>>> Hope this is helpful
>>> Dave
>>
>> Re-attaching the patch as it has a typo
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Prasad
