Re: [PATCH] fix warnings in treelang/parse.y

Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | The attached patch fixes the following warnings | | ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y: In function yyparse: | ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y:532: warning: too many arguments for format | ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y:641: warning: conversion l

[PATCH] fix warnings in treelang/parse.y

The attached patch fixes the following warnings ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y: In function yyparse: ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y:532: warning: too many arguments for format ../../gcc/gcc/treelang/parse.y:641: warning: conversion lacks type at end of format I am not sure if this is the best fi

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Especially for C++ which constructs a cpp_token array (sort of) representing > the entire translation unit, it is desirable to make cpp_token *smaller* -- > and it would be relatively easy to win back that 'whole word not used in the > case of identifier

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Ross Ridge wrote: > Joe Buck writes: > > To me, even a 1% performance hit to fix this would be excessive. > > I think any performance hit to support UCNs or extended characters outside > of strings and comments is undesirable. GCC should have an option like > "-trigraphs" fo

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > typedef void (*HandlerFunction)(); > typedef HandlerFunction (*SetHandlerFunction)(HandlerFunction); > > template > class HandlerStack { > public: > static void defaultHandler(); > }; > > typedef HandlerStack Terminate; > > template<> void Terminate::defaultHandler(

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > > == > > template struct X { > > struct I { I(); void foo(); }; > > }; > > > > template struct Y : X { > > typedef typename X::I I; > > }; > > > > template >

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

> GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org, in the: OK on SPARC/Solaris: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00788.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00789.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00790.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Thanks, everybody, for writing about this. The standardization process is one of consensus, and if the GCC developers find some areas of disagreement here I think it unlikely that the other POSIX implementers will agree with the proposed action. Hence I am thinking of weakening it. Currently the

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Joe Buck writes: > To me, even a 1% performance hit to fix this would be excessive. I think any performance hit to support UCNs or extended characters outside of strings and comments is undesirable. GCC should have an option like "-trigraphs" for the few programs that need this feature.

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:58:12PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > | To me, even a 1% performance hit to fix this would be excessive. | > | > My opinion is that is an excessive statement. | | Really, Gaby? C

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > == > template struct X { > struct I { I(); void foo(); }; > }; > > template struct Y : X { > typedef typename X::I I; > }; > > template > void Y::I::foo () {} > > template struct Y<1>; > =

Re: RFC: dbxout_type rewrite

On Sep 16, 2005, at 3:23 AM, Geoffrey Keating wrote: Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I've now patch ready (based on apple-local-200502-branch) but it requires few bug fixes in darwin GDB. My simple question is : Is anybody interested in reviewing this GCC patch for acceptance in FSF

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > == > > template struct X { > > struct I { I(); }; > > }; > > > > template struct Y : X { > > typedef typename X::I I; > > }; > > > > template > > Y::I::I () {} // note: I is nested

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 08:58:12PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | To me, even a 1% performance hit to fix this would be excessive. > > My opinion is that is an excessive statement. Really, Gaby? Consider that there are hundreds of other open bugs. Wo

Re: problems in C functions call C++

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 09:55:33PM +0200, Tommy Vercetti wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 19:08, Joe Buck wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:01:03AM +0800, Tian Dale-A19565 wrote: > > > I encountered a tough situation: > > > > Please, never send messages to both gcc and gcc-help. gcc-help w

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > > Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> If you tell us what the real question is, maybe we can answer that one. > > To me, that sounds like an insult: why do you think I wouldn't ask the > "real" question

Re: RFC: dbxout_type rewrite

Devang Patel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've now patch ready (based on apple-local-200502-branch) but it > requires few bug fixes in darwin GDB. My simple question is : Is > anybody interested in reviewing this GCC patch for acceptance in FSF > GCC (4.1 or 4.2 or whenever) irrespective of wheth

Re: problems in C functions call C++

On Friday 16 September 2005 19:08, Joe Buck wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:01:03AM +0800, Tian Dale-A19565 wrote: > > I encountered a tough situation: > > Please, never send messages to both gcc and gcc-help. gcc-help would > > have been the right list, except for: > > (arm_v6_vfp_le-gcc (GCC

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

[I apologize for breaking the thread; I am currently stuck using a web-mail client that does not permit manual insertion of References: headers. Please don't take this comment as a sign that I am resuming participation in GCC development in general.] Joseph Myers: > There are plenty of spare bits

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Mark, in PR c++/11987 you added a comment saying that it was a > regression. But the more I look at it, the less I understand it. > > The test case is: > > == > template struct X { > struct I { I(); }; > }; > > t

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

On Friday, September 16, 2005, at 10:19 AM, Jonathan Turkanis wrote: > I think I can give you an answer which is completely correct and yet > completely useless: -fvisibility=default is supported on every platform. Thank you -- it's not completely useless. It is. I don't want to recommen

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | To me, even a 1% performance hit to fix this would be excessive. My opinion is that is an excessive statement. -- Gaby

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On 16/09/2005, at 5:12 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: What this means in practise, I think, is that the structure that represents a token, 'struct cpp_token' will grow from 16 bytes to 20 bytes, which makes it 2 cache lines rather than 1, and a subseq

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:13, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >>GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org > > > arm-none-elf results look good: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00780.html Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMA

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 11:19:03AM -0600, Jonathan Turkanis wrote: > To me, that sounds like an insult: why do you think I wouldn't ask the > "real" question? But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you > mean something as yet unspecified. You did not explain your purpose in asking

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? The GCC docs >> here (http://tinyurl.com/99wc8) suggest that it is a subset of ELF >> platforms. Is that correct? > I think I can give you an answer which is com

Re: problems in C functions call C++

On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 01:01:03AM +0800, Tian Dale-A19565 wrote: > I encountered a tough situation: Please, never send messages to both gcc and gcc-help. gcc-help would have been the right list, except for: > (arm_v6_vfp_le-gcc (GCC) 3.4.3 (MontaVista 3.4.3-25.0.7.custom 2005-05-22) That is no

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:13, Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org arm-none-elf results look good: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00780.html Paul

problems in C functions call C++

Dear Sir/Madam: I encountered a tough situation: In my code have both c & c++ source code, some functions in c code call functions in c++, and vice versa. First I compiled the code using gcc compiler to a dynamic library(.so), it's okay. But when I changed compiler to arm gcc( version listed

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > Adding salt to the wound, of course, is that for C the only difference > > between an (A) or (B) and a (C) implementation is that a (C) > > implementation is less expressive: there are some programs, all of > > which are erroneous and require a diag

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Ross Ridge wrote: > Thinking semantically is irrelevent because the question isn't whether GCC > conforms to C99 or POSIX. It clearly doesn't. GCC fails the as-if rule. > The question is one of implementation burden, which can only be answered > by examining GCC's implementation. Robert Dewar w

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > What this means in practise, I think, is that the structure that > represents a token, 'struct cpp_token' will grow from 16 bytes to 20 > bytes, which makes it 2 cache lines rather than 1, and a subsequent > memory use increase and compiler performanc

Re: proposed Opengroup action for c99 command (XCU ERN 76)

Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Paul, > I proposed to insert the following paragraph after XCU page 213 line > 8366 (i.e, at the end of the INPUT FILES section of the c99 spec > ): > >It is implementation-defined wh

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

On 9/14/05, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org, in the: looks pretty ok on sparc/sparc64 linux, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00751.html my only concern is the issues with treelang, see, e.g., http://gcc.

Re: On which platforms is -fvisibility supported?

Jonathan Turkanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On which platforms is the -fvisibility option supported? The GCC docs > here (http://tinyurl.com/99wc8) suggest that it is a subset of ELF > platforms. Is that correct? I think I can give you an answer which is completely correct and yet completely

Re: Where are the fortran test results for cv strunk?

Christian Joensson wrote: So, I just wonder what's going wrong here... Could it be the problem explained in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00872.html? The patch is available later in that thread: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-09/msg00879.html Andrey

Re: Where are the fortran test results for cv strunk?

On 9/16/05, Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Friday 16 September 2005 07:47, Christian Joensson wrote: > > .. just a quickie here... I just noticed that I don't see the fortran > > test results on cvs trunk anymore... I suppose this might be related > > to the change of name from f95

Re: Where are the fortran test results for cv strunk?

On Friday 16 September 2005 07:47, Christian Joensson wrote: > .. just a quickie here... I just noticed that I don't see the fortran > test results on cvs trunk anymore... I suppose this might be related > to the change of name from f95/gfortran to fortran... Unlikely. --enable-languages=f95 stil