On Sat, 29 Oct 2011, Peter Bigot wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Based on what I've encountered so far, between having to duplicate many
> insns (one with CC_REG, one without), adding splits to convert between them,
> and making a hash of the templates for the
On 10/30/2011 03:25 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
-Important: because the ISO C++0x draft is still evolving,
- GCC's support for C++0x isexperimental. No attempt will be
- made to maintain backward compatibility with implementations of
- C++0x features that do not reflect the final C++0x standard
I'm not too sure how many things changed from 4.6.1 to 4.6.2 but I am
seeing a really large increase in the number of "unexpected failures" on
various tests.
With 4.6.1 and Solaris I was able to get reasonable results :
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-07/msg00139.html
Then if I use t
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Oleg Endo wrote:
> Since C++11 is now the official name, wouldn't it be better to use the
> new name instead of the old one after the initial historical
> introduction? :) Like...
Yes. Originally I wanted to avoid that to get my patch in faster,
but since you ask. Here is
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 10/29/2011 11:55 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
> > On 10/29/2011 08:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > > Michael Eager writes:
> > >
> > > > I'm seeing a build failure when building a bootstrap gcc
> > > > because it is attempting to build target-libiberty.
2011/10/25 Georg-Johann Lay :
> With the following, small C test program
>
>
> typedef struct
> {
> unsigned char a, b, c, d;
> } s_t;
>
> unsigned char func1 (s_t *x, s_t *y, s_t *z)
> {
> unsigned char s = 0;
> s += x->a;
> s += y->a;
> s += z->a;
>
> s += x->b;
> s += y->b;
On 10/29/2011 11:55 PM, Michael Eager wrote:
On 10/29/2011 08:44 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Michael Eager writes:
I'm seeing a build failure when building a bootstrap gcc
because it is attempting to build target-libiberty. This
is happening for --target=powerpc-linux with the gcc-4.6.1
releas
On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
>> No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft
>> is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now.
>
> How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of
> C++11.
On Sun, 2011-10-30 at 14:14 +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> + C++0x was the working name of a new ISO C++ standard, which then
> + was released in 2011 as C++11 and introduces a host of new features
> + into the standard C++ language and library. This project seeks to
>implement new C++0x fe
On 30 October 2011 13:14, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> @@ -9,11 +9,11 @@
>
>
>
> - C++0x Support in GCC
> + C++0x/C++11 Support in GCC
>
> - C++0x is the working name of the next ISO C++ standard, due by
> - the end of this decade, which introduces a host of new features into
> - the standard C
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Joe Buck wrote:
> No, the page now claims something that is incorrect. The C++0x draft
> is no longer evolving. C++11 is an official standard now.
How about the patch below? It tries to reflect the release of
C++11. There definitely will be more adjustments, but this is
a
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM, David Miller wrote:
>
> gcc.dg/pr48616.c segfaults on sparc as of a day or two ago
>
> vectorizable_shift() crashes because op1_vectype is NULL and
> we hit this code path:
>
> /* Vector shifted by vector. */
> if (!scalar_shift_arg)
> {
> optab = optab_
> Hi, all. It looks like some one has report a similar bug on:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49951
>
> and it has caused by the revision:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=149722
>
> Any GCC developer can have look at it?
Maybe you can ask GCC C++ fronten
13 matches
Mail list logo
