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 compile
> > using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
> >
> > Nick
>
> Effectively that's what bootstrapping already does, so IIUIC, as long as no
> C99 creeps into the core C language compiler, it /should/ work to use C99 (and
> indeed GCC language extensions, attributes etc. etc.) in e.g. the cp/
> subdirectory or other places where the files only relate to other languages.
>
But if I add in my pass // args, or mixed code and variable
declarations for example, I get warnings, so it is not that clean.
Maybe only by removing pedantic, are you able to do that.
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?
Right?
Cheers,
Paulo Matos
> cheers,
> DaveK
> --
> Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
>
>
--
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK
--
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at soton.ac.uk
http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
PhD Student @ ECS
University of Southampton, UK
