Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Maybe that is the case for Ada; for the C or C++ standards, you'll
have to define "good reason".
-- Gaby
Again, I suggest that vague high level discussion is a waste of time
here, it will be much more
productive to discuss specific examples.
> From: Mike Stump wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Paul Schlie wrote:
>> As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined
>> semantics;
>
> I'd rather it be called --do-what-i-mean. :-)
>
> Could you give us a hint at what all the semantics you would want to
> change with thi
The following stats do not capture the numerous hours of
code review, emails, bug chasing and reduction, and IRC
discussions that concern gfortran. Although the stats
suggest that a majority of the commits and patches are due
to the effort of a small handful of individuals, in fact over
50 differ
Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Paul Schlie wrote:
|
| >- Are there any particular formally "undefined" language semantics you
| > perceive as being difficult associate with an alternatively well defined
| > target specific implementation behavior? As if not, I can only interpret
|
Paul Schlie wrote:
- Are there any particular formally "undefined" language semantics you
perceive as being difficult associate with an alternatively well defined
target specific implementation behavior? As if not, I can only interpret
your response as being itself both seemingly unfounded a
On Dec 31, 2005, at 10:51 AM, Paul Schlie wrote:
As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined
semantics;
I'd rather it be called --do-what-i-mean. :-)
Could you give us a hint at what all the semantics you would want to
change with this option? Are their any code bases th
> From: Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Paul Schlie wrote:
>
>> As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined semantics;
>> it would seem desirable to be able to conveniently force GCC to presume
>> a target's true native semantics in lieu of presuming their being undefined.
Hi Mike,
- Original Message -
> static inline float get_coef(enum ftype t) {
>return *(float *)((char *)&filter_s + filter_s.offset_callback(t));
> }
>
> static inline enum ftype set_coef(enum ftype t, float val) {
>*(float *)((char *)&filter_s + filter_s.offset_callback(t)) = val
Hello,
I have small issue building arm-elf toolchain for using with eCos OS. So
far I have used arm-elf tool chain provided by http://www.gnuarm.com/
(I've used 4.0.1 GCC) and there is no problem with it, but now I would
like to prefer building my own. I've checked that source files provided
Paul Schlie wrote:
As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined semantics;
it would seem desirable to be able to conveniently force GCC to presume
a target's true native semantics in lieu of presuming their being undefined.
As a general principle this is completely meaningles
As although C/C++ define some expressions as having undefined semantics;
it would seem desirable to be able to conveniently force GCC to presume
a target's true native semantics in lieu of presuming their being undefined.
Thereby more conveniently and optimally enabling use of GCC as a high-level,
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20051231 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20051231/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 02:12 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I noticed that we add a constraint for each variable that is assigned
> to the
> return value of a function call even though that information is useless
> for
> non pointers?
> Is there a reason why we do this?
Laziness.
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leif Ekblad) wrote on 30.12.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mike Stump:
> > make will build libgcc for the target, specifically, you should be
> > able to cd gcc && make libgcc.a to build it.
>
> It did when I added --host=rdos to the configuration script and
> changed a couple of
I have been looking closer at the following C front-end global
variables:
current_function_returns_value
current_function_returns_null
current_function_returns_abnormally
Which are declared in c-decl.c. They are basically used as a way to
communicate with c-typeck.c.
All have to be in
15 matches
Mail list logo
