Re: ACATS Target Requirement Question

> RTEMS has BSPs for a couple of simulators that > do not have a source for clock tick interrupts. > We simulate the passage of time by having a special > IDLE task advance time. This works well enough > when all tasks block but if a test depends on > something like timeslice expiration, that won'

Re: Adding to G++: Adding a warning on throwing unspecified exceptions.

> The above works on code::blocks, which uses some form of GCC, and > looks OK to me. > Of course this only works for exactly one exception type. > You'd have to wait for C++0X variadic templates (and hope you can > throw them) if you need zero or more than one. > It's also very verbose, a little

gcc-4.3-20080925 is now available

Snapshot gcc-4.3-20080925 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20080925/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches

Re: ACATS Target Requirement Question

On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 14:49 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote: > Well I guess running the ACATS gives a big hint. There were not many > failures on sh-rtems4.10 and some of those were illegal memory accesses. > So only the c4* and cxa* are likely to be related to not having a real > clock tick. The c4 f

Re: Adding to G++: Adding a warning on throwing unspecified exceptions.

2008/9/24 Simon Hill: > Brain Dessent wrote: >> You're essentially trusting that all >> exception specifiers for every function in the program and *all* library >> code are always present and always correct which is a huge leap of faith >> that I don't think is supported by reality. > > I agree tha

Re: h8300 on testsuite and -wrap

Joel Sherrill wrote: Hi, I am trying to run the gcc test suite on h8300-rtems and getting lots of failures which look like this: /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-h8300/gcc/xgcc -B/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-h8300/gcc/ /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20001

h8300 on testsuite and -wrap

Hi, I am trying to run the gcc test suite on h8300-rtems and getting lots of failures which look like this: /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-h8300/gcc/xgcc -B/home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-h8300/gcc/ /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/20001031-1.c gcc_tg.o -w

Продажа и монтаж сайдинга

ПР0ДАЖА И М0НТАЖ САЙДИНГА И В0Д0СТ0К0В... - - - Наша компания продает высококачественный виниловый и цокольный сайдинг производства Канады, США и России... ЦЕНЫ на материалы - значительно НИЖЕ рыночных, за счет прямых закупок у экспортеров и специальных скидок предоставленных для нашей компании

Re: ACATS Target Requirement Question

Well I guess running the ACATS gives a big hint. There were not many failures on sh-rtems4.10 and some of those were illegal memory accesses. So only the c4* and cxa* are likely to be related to not having a real clock tick. sh-rtems4.10-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20080918 (experimental) [trunk revision 14

[graphite] Graphite Workshop in Austin (before SC'08)

Hi, For those interested in participating in a two days graphite development, please consider updating the wiki page adding your name in the attendees list http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite_Workshop_Nov08 We need to know how many developers will attend the workshop for logistics purposes: the meeti

ACATS Target Requirement Question

Hi, RTEMS has BSPs for a couple of simulators that do not have a source for clock tick interrupts. We simulate the passage of time by having a special IDLE task advance time. This works well enough when all tasks block but if a test depends on something like timeslice expiration, that won't happ

Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles

On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: This means that you couldn't use *GCC* if you did something the FSF found objectionable, closing an easy work-around. This doesn't work, because it breaks out of the basic framework of copyright law. Nobody signs anything or accepts any terms

Re: Apple, iPhone, and GPLv3 troubles

>> This means that you couldn't use *GCC* if you >> did something the FSF found objectionable, closing an easy >> work-around. > > This doesn't work, because it breaks out of the basic framework of > copyright law. Nobody signs anything or accepts any terms in order to > use gcc. The FSF wants t

Re: Adding to G++: Adding a warning on throwing unspecified exceptions.

Brendon Costa wrote: > You as an author of a new template class "could" define it the other way. > > The issue here is that doing so restricts usage of the generic > component. In specific cases this may be desirable, but not for generic > components like STL containers or those in boost. For gener