I really do not like the current name either, but i do not have a better
one.
Since the whole file is about MAINTAINERS, I would suggest changing the
categories to:
- Committers (i.e. committing maintainers)
- Reviewers (i.e. reviewing maintainers)
- Non-algorithmic committers
Paolo
SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this machine
I did further digging and built my own libiconv and installed that into my
own isolated "local" directory at $HOME/local
then I destroyed my previous stage 1 work and started over again thus :
bash-3.2$ date
Thu Jul
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:13 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Or maybe this is not a good idea, but I have certainly seen some folks
> that complain about our less than friendly practices.
Alternative would be to keep gcc@ and document that
emails with subject tag [BEGINNER] should not be answered
by
> Hi Jan.
>
> What do you expect DECL_SAVED_TREE to have in cgraph_analyze_functions:
>
> /* ??? It is possible to create extern inline function and later using
>weak alias attribute to kill its body. See
>gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-1.c */
> if (!DECL_SAVED_TREE (
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wednesday July 18, 2007 I brought factual evidence to
> that claim by showing g++ behaviour on all of the examples
> discussed (including those from the "decltype" proposal).
> (All I did was to encode call expressions, new expressions
> and a few other tree nodes).
I
On 7/26/07, Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
template
class is_default_constructible {
template struct helper {};
typedef char no; typedef char yes[2];
static no fn(...);
static yes fn( helper* );
public:
static const bool value = sizeof(fn(0)) == sizeof(yes);
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that when we do steer someone to a different list, we could
> take more care to be polite about it than we sometimes are.
I agree. I also think we should all try harder to avoid flippant or
non-responsive replies to new developers. I think it's imp
Doug Gregor wrote:
> Now, we're saying that any expressions are valid in
> sizeof, decltype, and constant expressions. If those
> expressions fail to type-check during substitution, it
> will be a SFINAE case.
Just to be sure we're not talking at cross purposes, can I
check that the current think
David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Between gcc@ and gcc-help@ I think we have it pretty much covered. I
> have not really seen anyone flamed on gcc@ when they ask newbie type
> questions related to GCC development.
I think the risk is not so much that people get flamed, as that they
get n
On 7/26/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
> >might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc and
> >gcc-patche
Diego Novillo wrote:
[ Forgot to CC gcc@ in my initial message, thanks Andrew. ]
I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc a
Kenneth Zadeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> diego's suggestion is ok. i guess it at least satisfies the criteria of
> being a well known word.
I like "non-self-approving". I needed a dictionary to figure out what
"autopoiesis" meant.
Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Hi! I'm new at gcc. How do I compile C programs? Can I use it to
write video games?"
> The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers
"Oh, is that wha
David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Diego Novillo writes:
>>
>
> Diego> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
> Diego> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
> Diego> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
>
>
[ Forgot to CC gcc@ in my initial message, thanks Andrew. ]
I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc and
gcc-patches. In th
Hi Jan.
What do you expect DECL_SAVED_TREE to have in cgraph_analyze_functions:
/* ??? It is possible to create extern inline function and later using
weak alias attribute to kill its body. See
gcc.c-torture/compile/2009-1.c */
if (!DECL_SAVED_TREE (decl))
On 7/26/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc and
gcc-patches. In this list
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The arm backend has support for both gas assembly and the syntax used by
> proprietary arm assemblers (controlled by AOF_ASSEMBLER).
>
> I'm told that the only recent users of this feature were the riscos folks,
>
DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > tm.texi does not require that NO_REGS == 0,
>
> Um, yes? Unless you're assuming that the user could do NO_REGS=5 or
> something in the enum, so that the enum starts with something other
> than zero? If tha
> Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
Diego> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
Diego> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Diego> Would this patch be OK? Any other suggestions
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> tm.texi does not require that NO_REGS == 0,
Um, yes? Unless you're assuming that the user could do NO_REGS=5 or
something in the enum, so that the enum starts with something other
than zero? If that's what you're thinking, perhaps we should change
Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| About five years ago, I reported a bug about an ICE when
| trying to mangle expressions involving operator new.
|
| http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg01417.html
| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6057
|
| A three line example
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
> unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
> Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Disclaimer: I am writing this in my capacity as non-nat
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:29:26PM +1000, 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.
>
>For examp
I've always found the term Non-Autopoiesis too pretentious and
unnecessarily complex. In a recent thread, Tobias Schluter proposed
Non-autonomous, which is at least more readily understandable.
Would this patch be OK? Any other suggestions for a better category
name? Is anyone violently oppose
> On 26 July 2007 03:09, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> The configure line for GCC 4.2.1 looks like so :
>>
>> bash-3.2$ /export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/configure
>> --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
>> --enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --prefix=/export/home/d
On 7/26/07, Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Gregor wrote:
> This kind of thing came up that the last C++ committee meeting, as
> part of core issue 339:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_active.html#339
>
> Name mangling is part of the problem, but not all of it.
Doug Gregor wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 7/26/07, Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A three line example exhibiting the ICE is:
> >
> > template struct helper {};
> > template void check( helper* );
> > int main() { check(0); }
> >
[...]
>
> This kind of thing came up that the
The arm backend has support for both gas assembly and the syntax used by
proprietary arm assemblers (controlled by AOF_ASSEMBLER).
I'm told that the only recent users of this feature were the riscos folks, and
that they no longer care.
The only target that uses this code in the FSF tree is arm-
Hi Richard,
On 7/26/07, Richard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About five years ago, I reported a bug about an ICE when
trying to mangle expressions involving operator new.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg01417.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6057
A three l
About five years ago, I reported a bug about an ICE when
trying to mangle expressions involving operator new.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-03/msg01417.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6057
A three line example exhibiting the ICE is:
template struct helper {};
On 26/07/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/26/07 9:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > On 7/26/07 8:21 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> >
> >> So currently, the answer seems to be no.
> >
> > Right. It's a cool future feature, but so far nobody seems to be
> > working on it.
>
> I h
On 7/26/07 9:55 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 7/26/07 8:21 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
>
>> So currently, the answer seems to be no.
>
> Right. It's a cool future feature, but so far nobody seems to be
> working on it.
I have to retract this. On IRC I was pointed to various efforts in the
On 7/26/07 8:21 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> So currently, the answer seems to be no.
Right. It's a cool future feature, but so far nobody seems to be
working on it.
Implementing the optimization pragmas at a function level should not be
too hard, though we may need to tweak the callgraph
On 7/26/07, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have 3 functions- fun1, fun2, fun3 in the same source file and i
> want to enable one or any of the gcc optimization pass to code in fun2
> only,
>
> 1. Is it possible to implement this using functio
Hi, Guenther
It works. Thank you very much!
Canqun Yang
--- Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 7/26/07, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, all
> >
> > Can anyone help me to resolve this problem?
> >
> > When I compile a program with .bss segement larger than 2.0GB, I get the
Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
Hi all,
I have 3 functions- fun1, fun2, fun3 in the same source file and i
want to enable one or any of the gcc optimization pass to code in fun2
only,
1. Is it possible to implement this using function attributes or #pragms's?
I believe that currently, tuning optimisat
Friendly Gaurav
Build it with the -ggdb2 option, and follow those steps:
$ gdb a.out
(gdb) start
(gdb) stepi
(gdb) backtrace
(gdb) step
(gdb) bt
(gdb) stepi
(gdb) bt
(gdb) help
It's funny ;)
Wasn't there a discussion yesterday about the fact that this is
off-topic for this mailing list? Please take this thread somewhere more
appropriate.
Thanks,
Ben
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 14:22 +0530, Gaurav Kheterpal wrote:
> My apologies if this message doesn’t seem appropriate on this list.
It's not appropriate for this list. This list is for discussing GCC
development, not development with GCC.
Cheers, Ben
2007/7/26, Anitha Boyapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello Pizarro,
(hope I got the name correctly!). The central idea of patch
is nice. Although it is obvious from the patch, just to say -
you are printing out the elf data structure size by means of 'len'
and the command mode Elf_Cmd 'cmd'.
On 7/26/07, Canqun Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, all
Can anyone help me to resolve this problem?
When I compile a program with .bss segement larger than 2.0GB, I get the
following error message from GNU linker (binutils-2.15).
(.text+0x305): In function `sta_':
: relocation truncated to
Hi, all
Can anyone help me to resolve this problem?
When I compile a program with .bss segement larger than 2.0GB, I get the
following error message from GNU linker (binutils-2.15).
(.text+0x305): In function `sta_':
: relocation truncated to fit: R_X86_64_32S plot_
..
I upgrade the assembl
Hi,
On a quick look ---
>
> My apologies if this message doesnt seem appropriate on this list.
gcc-help list is appropriate for such issues.
> _handle = dlopen( "./libchrcv.so", RTLD_NOW | RTLD_GLOBAL );
Have you tried with any other library or only this ? I tried the entire
program wit
On 26 July 2007 08:30, Rohit Arul Raj wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have 3 functions- fun1, fun2, fun3 in the same source file and i
> want to enable one or any of the gcc optimization pass to code in fun2
> only,
>
> 1. Is it possible to implement this using function attributes or #pragms's?
Nope.
On 26 July 2007 03:09, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> The configure line for GCC 4.2.1 looks like so :
>
> bash-3.2$ /export/home/dclarke/build/gcc-4.2.1/configure
> --with-as=/usr/ccs/bin/as --without-gnu-ld --with-ld=/usr/ccs/bin/ld
> --enable-threads=posix --disable-nls --prefix=/export/home/dclarke/l
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 02:29:26PM +1000, 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.
For example, several targets would build/bootstrap and regtest fine with
relo
Hi all,
I have 3 functions- fun1, fun2, fun3 in the same source file and i
want to enable one or any of the gcc optimization pass to code in fun2
only,
1. Is it possible to implement this using function attributes or #pragms's?
2. What will be its side-effects?
Regards,
Rohit
48 matches
Mail list logo
