I want to flag that some changes in GCC 4.3.0 20070816 rev 127568:
* Makefile.in (REVISION): New.
(REVISION_c): New.
(REVISION_s): New.
(version.o): Also depend on $(REVISION). Add
-DREVISION=$(REVISION_s).
* version.c (version_string): Add
Hello Paolo,
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:05:47AM CEST:
>> I think we should adjust the Libtool sources in this case. [...]
>> Would this patch eliminate further doubts? If no, could you suggest an
>> improvement?
>
> It does look like a good idea.
Thanks. I applied that.
Shouldn't the last (optional) argument be (1) const and (2) a reference
(rather than a potentially very expensive copying call-by-value)? Among
other things, if you have a type declared with alignment attributes, it
will fail on this. I notice the MSVC implementation has (1) but not
(2). I c
On 16/08/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/16/07 6:18 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> > Am I wrong? Why can be the reason for this? How can I
> > investigate further?
>
> That's right. In this case variable 'i' is an addressable local, so it
> is not put in normal SSA form. I
On 8/16/07 6:18 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Am I wrong? Why can be the reason for this? How can I
> investigate further?
That's right. In this case variable 'i' is an addressable local, so it
is not put in normal SSA form. It's in virtual SSA form (use the -vops
option when dumping the IL)
On 16/08/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If we comment out foo(&i); then we do give a warning. I would like to
> understand what is going on. So I dumped the gimple and SSA trees for
> the original and the commented out version (uninit-B2).
Oops! In the dumps attached I did
Hi,
While doing a review of the open and closed PRs related to
Wuninitialized for my Google's Summer of Code[*], I found out that
PR179 was never actually fixed. This means that we still xfail
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-B.c
extern void foo (int *);
extern void ba
On 8/10/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they are having trouble getting reviewed? Any comments
> re. timing for Stage 3?
>
I have many bfin port patches which have not been merged into
upstream. I hope I c
I think we should adjust the Libtool sources in this case. While CVS
HEAD's ltmain.sh is generated from ltmain.m4sh, and we prefer patches
against the latter file, the former is definitely in a source code form
that makes modifications just as easy: both are shell scripts without
lots of redundan
