On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 07:05 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> > testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> > think.
>
> If it gave anyone a shock to find out that the test suite did not
> provide 100
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 00:52 +0300, Evgeniy Filatov wrote:
> I am programmer, i am writing C/C++ programs for Nokia Series 60
> devices, and often i need to run some parts of code directly on
> device. I think, not only me, but other symbian developers got same
> problem. There are no C compiler, t
System is Solaris 8 Sparc. Totally up to date. Vendor provided compiler is
Sun ONE Studio 8 also patched up to date.
My boot strap of GCC 4.2.1 fails at stage 2. Here is what I know.
My approach with GCC has always been to bootstrap at least twice and then
run the testsuites to verify that wh
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Here is a patch. We are working on an external libbid open source
> website. I will update it when it is up and running.
Thanks! I believe you'd ment the first sentence to read "The master
sources come from the Intel BID library..."? The patch is fine with
t
Hi Brian,
> This:
>
> /* Internal convenience typedefs */
> typedef GLvoid (*_GLUfuncptr)(GLvoid);
>
> Produces this:
>
> ../.././include/libinc/GL/glu.h:259: error: '' has incomplete type
> ../.././include/libinc/GL/glu.h:259: error: invalid use of 'GLvoid'
>
> What am I missing???
See http://gc
On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 09:02 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> To everybody else: Would it be possible to implement a filter such the
> first mail ever from someone gets bounced back with a message about
> what the list is about and suggesting sending the mail again if the
> sender is sure that i
This:
/* Internal convenience typedefs */
typedef GLvoid (*_GLUfuncptr)(GLvoid);
Produces this:
../.././include/libinc/GL/glu.h:259: error: '' has incomplete
type
../.././include/libinc/GL/glu.h:259: error: invalid use of 'GLvoid'
What am I missing???
-brian
Brian D. McGrew{ [EMAIL PR
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 14:40, David A. Greene wrote:
> Has anyone had a chance to look at bug 32346 yet? The fact that its status
> is still UNCONFIRMED and unassigned leads me to think not.
Forgot to add that this bug still exists on trunk.
-Dave
Has anyone had a chance to look at bug 32346 yet? The fact that its status
is still UNCONFIRMED and unassigned leads me to think not.
-Dave
2007/7/25, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
>
> After runned it, see "quickdirty.log" and post here your report's summary.
No, please do not. This is not the libelf list; use that li
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:50:13PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> 2007/7/25, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> >> Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
> >>
> >> After runned it, see "quickdirty.log" and post here your repor
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
>
> After runned it, see "quickdirty.log" and post here your report's summary.
No, please do not. This is not the libelf list; use that list.
Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
After runned it, see "quickdirty.log" and post here your report's summary.
;)
libelf-0.8.2_quickdirtyprint.patch
Description: Binary data
Joe Buck wrote:
Right. However, some coverage-oriented methodologies explicitly mark code
that is expected to be unreachable, and produce unit tests to exercise at
least some of the defensive code that no longer gets run by the compiler
as a whole. If any volunteers would like to take on the j
On 25 July 2007 18:00, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:51:57PM +0530, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
>> Firstly, I would say my message is somewhere completely off the topic on
>> either of the lists. But I dont know where to ask for help. I searched and
>> searched for all pointers on libel
Ben Elliston wrote:
> >If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
> >testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
> >think.
>
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:05:36AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> If it gave anyone a shock to find out that the test sui
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:51:57PM +0530, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
> Firstly, I would say my message is somewhere completely off the topic on
> either of the lists. But I dont know where to ask for help. I searched and
> searched for all pointers on libelf.
The fact remains that it is off-topic.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/07/07, S.SRIDHAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi...
Now i am working on GCC v3.3.2 and kernel 2.4,i want to upgrade both to
the latest version GCC v4.2 and kernel 2.6,i don't know how to do so
can u
help me
That depends on which flavour of GNU/Linux
On 7/25/07, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For performance small arrays should be the same as individual members
> (I can see the annoying fact that initialization is a headache - this has
> annoyed me as well). For larger arrays (>4 members), aliasing will
> make a difference possi
Ben Elliston wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 10:48 +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
GCC is thoroughly tested. None the less, there is always room for
improvement, so if you have time to implement your ideas or write
documentation, you are welcome to contribute.
If you build the compiler with
Hi,
Firstly, I would say my message is somewhere completely off the topic on
either of the lists. But I dont know where to ask for help. I searched and
searched for all pointers on libelf.
Now, I use an age-old version probably - libelf.so.0.8.2.
I donno from where I got it, but probably from
On 25/07/07, S.SRIDHAR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi...
Now i am working on GCC v3.3.2 and kernel 2.4,i want to upgrade both to
the latest version GCC v4.2 and kernel 2.6,i don't know how to do so can u
help me
That depends on which flavour of GNU/Linux you are using. This mailing
Hi:
Thank you very much for your suggestion.
2007/7/24, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 24 July 2007 07:42, ?? wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >I know GCC is a wonderful compiler collection. I like it and trust
> > it. But, I can't find any formal docs about Testing GCC, both unit
> > testing and
23 matches
Mail list logo
