"Kaveh Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right, here's the original link where I mention it:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01658.html
>
> This involves a cast from one type to another through a void*. I haven't
> been able to convince myself that this is completely safe. If s
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
>>
>> This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
>> appropriate configure option.
>
>
> The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
>
> ${gcc_dir}/config
From: "NightStrike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings f
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaveh mentioned these in his original e-mail, explained why he found
it difficult to fix, and added this to the Makefile so that it
wouldn't break the build.
# bitmap.c contains -Wc++compat warnings.
bitmap.o-warn = -Wno-error
This too should be fix
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
good morning Nick:
You try to isolate whether this really is a linker bug. (It
certainly sounds like it is). If you can reproduce the problem
just using assembler source files then please file a bug report
with the binutils project (at http://sourceware.org/bugzilla).
Including a *small* test
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
target. Also these are only warnings--this code is not compiled with
-Werror.
I
I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
-W options were applied to the trunk. The following are for an
x86_64-pc-linux to x86_64-pc-mingw32 cross compiler:
In file included from ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:41:
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2-fde.h: I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've read that allocating objects on the stack is faster than on the
> heap. What about deletion? Is deleting an object from the heap a lot
> less efficient? Are the performance differences so negligible that they
> won't matter?
>
> Are there any papers or articles
Hello,
I've read that allocating objects on the stack is faster than on the
heap. What about deletion? Is deleting an object from the heap a lot
less efficient? Are the performance differences so negligible that they
won't matter?
Are there any papers or articles that address the stack and he
Thanks everyone!
I will file a feature request for this via bugzilla.
Regards,
Sajish.
- Original Message
From: Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sajish V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Tues
Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
${gcc_dir}/configure --prefix="${prefix_dir}" \
--exec-prefix="${eprefix_dir}" \
15 matches
Mail list logo
