On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
>> >> The current scheme documented on website
>> >> (https://sit
Website updated as follows.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.813
diff -u -r1.813 index.html
--- index.html 12 Sep 2011 00:04:45 - 1.813
+++ index.html 12 Oct
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
> >> The current scheme documented on website
> >> (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) uses the existing triplet but
> >>
Hello!
I have figured out the creation of functions and structures, thanks
Andi's and Balaji's. Couldn't understand how to create tree for
template functions, classes, methods.
Can you help me figure that out, please?
Thanks.
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
>> As x32 psABI (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) is invented, do
>> we need a new triplet for system relies on triplet to figure out it's
>> targeted on x32 environment. The new
Hello Everyone,
This question is regarding adding offsets into a user-defined section
into gcc.
Let’s say I have a section called “my_section” and I want the section to have
some sub-sections (e.g. a string table). One of the fields in my section is the
offset to the next header. How do
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111011 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111011/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Status
==
Trunk remains in Stage 1 and based on the 4.6 release schedule this
should end around the end of October unless a small delay is useful to
help merge any development branches. Of the branches mentioned in the
last status report, it appears that only transactional-memory and
cxx-mem-
Yes, this is what I intended. A normal 'make check' will only run the
C++ testsuite once, but 'make check-c++' will also run the testsuite
in C++0x mode.
Ok, thanks. Indeed I remember when you cleaned up some testcases vs
c++0x but after a while I noticed something "inconsistent" between make
On 10/11/2011 10:03 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*.
Yes. Once with -std=c++0x, once without.
On 10/11/2011 03:57 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 10/11/2011 06:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*.
Yes. Once with -std=c++0x, once without.
Doh! But that doesn't happen as part of 'ma
On 10/11/2011 06:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*.
Yes. Once with -std=c++0x, once without.
Jason
On 10/11/2011 11:51 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
> check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*. Seriously, many times over
> the last month or two, never before. Does this make sense to anybody?
> What could I do to debug it
On 05/10/2011 04:56, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 00:10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Iain Buclaw writes:
>>
>>> First question that pops up after having a quick look is, are there
>>> any tips around for writing the scripts for the testsuite? I'm not too
>>> familiar with Dejagnu, and t
Hi,
sorry if I just need more sleep, but I'm pretty sure to have seen 'make
check-c++' running the C++ testsuite *twice*. Seriously, many times over
the last month or two, never before. Does this make sense to anybody?
What could I do to debug it?
Thanks,
Paolo.
"Paulo J. Matos" writes:
> On 26/09/11 17:23, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> The function added_clobbers_hard_reg_p is a generated function. So
>> another approach would be some sort of attribute which directs the
>> generator (genemit) to ignore certain hard registers.
>>
>
> This definitely soun
16 matches
Mail list logo