Snapshot gcc-4.7-20110924 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7-20110924/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 8:37 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Daniel Drake writes:
>
>> We have found a ld segfault that occurs early in the gcc compile
>> process - the first time it tries to link cc1. This is testing on
>> armv5tel.
>
> Issues with the GNU binutils should normall go to
> binut...@
Daniel Drake writes:
> We have found a ld segfault that occurs early in the gcc compile
> process - the first time it tries to link cc1. This is testing on
> armv5tel.
Issues with the GNU binutils should normall go to
binut...@sourceware.org. See http://sourceware.org/binutils/ .
I don't know
it. And while I think the compiler should be allowed to generate the
optimised code of 4.6 (i.e., the change is not a bug IMHO), I fully
understand the idea of generating the older, slower, but definitely correct
code of 4.5.
My understanding is that the standard mandates the old behavior, so
On 24/09/2011 17:09, John Regehr wrote:
What can't make sense is a /static/ "volatile const" which is
/defined/ locally, rather than just declared.
The code in question sounds well-defined (but probably poor style) to me.
It is never OK to access a qualified object through an unqualified
point
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 03:55:10PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
> > It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
> > choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
> > about ~1 year ago.
>
> It
What can't make sense is a /static/ "volatile const" which is /defined/
locally, rather than just declared.
The code in question sounds well-defined (but probably poor style) to me.
It is never OK to access a qualified object through an unqualified
pointer, but my understanding is that accessi
Hello All,
As you probably know, gengtype is useful for plugins, and they also need the
gtype.state
file.
However, the current GCC trunk still don't seem to install it.
[several distributions, including Mandriva & Debian, are patching GCC for that
purpose]
And GCC installation procedure and g
On 24 September 2011 15:40, Jon Grant wrote:
> It's kind of re-iterating the command line options, that the user will
> choose to be aware of already. I don't recall seeing that text output before
> about ~1 year ago.
It was there in GCC 4.1, maybe earlier, I didn't check.
> I'd thought because t
Jonathan Wakely wrote, On 19/09/11 19:40:
On 19 September 2011 18:59, Jon Grant wrote:
Hello
I noticed that when compiling C files with GCC and using the -Werror
option, I see this additional output:
cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
./src/main.c: In function 'main':
./src/main.c:41:15
e
The diff I posted is the correct one:
> Here is the diff between the two versions:
> http://dev.laptop.org/~dsd/20110924/binutils-2.21.51.0.8-to-binutils-2.21.51.0.9.diff
Thanks,
Daniel
issue or wouldn't mind taking a quick look
at the differences between these 2 versions to help us cherry-pick the
exact fix, it would be much appreciated.
Here is the diff between the two versions:
http://dev.laptop.org/~dsd/20110924/binutils-2.21.51.0.8-to-binutils-2.21.51.0.9.diff
Thanks,
Daniel
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> I notice the following description is different from how spu & m32c use it.
>
> In internal manual:
>
> bool TARGET_ADDR_SPACE_SUBSET_P (addr space t superset, [Target Hook]
> addr space t subset)
> Define this to return whether the subs
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 06:19 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't go that far. They *used* to be compiler barriers,
>> but clearly something broke at some point without anyone noticing.
>> We don't know how many versions are affected until w
14 matches
Mail list logo
