On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 17:54, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
>> online. The document is at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9
Lawrence Crowl writes:
> It appears that "cd gcc; make" now fails to build crtbegin.o.
> An additional "make all-install" seems to be needed. Was
> this change intentional?
It moved to libgcc. Look in TARGET/libgcc in your build directory.
Ian
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
>> online. The document is at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vx
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
Diego Novillo wrote:
> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
> online. The document is at
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
Should we edit the document (I don't dare doing tha
On 03/12/2011 12:16, Dave Korn wrote:
> Running "make -j8 install" in a fresh build of head, I saw loads of the
> following error messages coming out in the log:
>
>> cp: cannot create regular file
>> `/gnu/gcc/install.obj3/gnu/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.7.0/adainclude/a-ztmoau.adb':
>> File
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20111206 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20111206/
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
uname -a
Darwin biggie.local 11.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.2.0: Tue Aug 9 \
20:54:00 PDT 2011;
root:xnu-1699.24.8~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64
gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i686-apple-darwin11
Configured with: /private/var/tmp/llvmgcc42/llvmgcc42-2336.1~1/src/configure\
--disable-checking --
I have built binutils 2.22.51
../configure --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi \
--prefix=/usr/local/arm-bq-reader --with-gnu-as --with-gnu-ld \
--disable-werror --disable-shared --disable-multilib
I then built the first-stage gcc cross compiler
../configure --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi \
On 12/05/2011 04:05 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> I find that exception handling doesn't work properly for the epiphany with
> recent gcc sources (it worked in the pre-merged port with sources from July).
> I suppose that is related to the change mentioned in:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011
At the last developer's meeting in London, Joseph and I agreed to work
on an architectural definition for GCC. We now have something that,
while incomplete, should be enough to discuss.
Our main intent is to define new conventions and guidelines that will
simplify GCC development. The document i
It appears that "cd gcc; make" now fails to build crtbegin.o.
An additional "make all-install" seems to be needed. Was
this change intentional?
--
Lawrence Crowl
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> In theory we could go ahead and translate into SSA when not optimizing
> which would remove the dependency on -O, at the expense of
> compile-time performance.
We actually already do this ... As there is only SSA expand now.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinsk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 12:21, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> While using the optimizers to improve the quality of uninitialized
> warnings does have some benefits, those benefits are outweighed by
> the drawbacks. We need to completely reimplement this warning,
> ei
David Brown writes:
> The point of a warning like "unintialised variable" is static error
> checking - it is to help spot mistakes in your code. And if there is
> a path through the function that uses an uninitialised variable,
> that's almost certainly a bug in your code - one you would like th
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 09:29:30AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
> >I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
> >false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
> >positives.
>
> My view is that for compiler
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Declaring the parameter above as ‘int x[a]’ is valid C99. I fail to see
> why this is insufficient for the purposes we discussed. Could you clarify?
Sorry, I hadn't realized that C99 permitted that. The standard does
clearly state that in pr
On 6 December 2011 16:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm guessing you've called format with an explicit template
> argument list, and it's not compatible with the actual types you
> called the function with. Due to
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50828 the error doesn't
> show the expl
On 6 December 2011 15:18, David Brown wrote:
>
> But clearly the uninitialised warnings are useful, and users would like to
> see them improved - if it is possible to do so without adversely affecting
> code generation, of course.
Yes, we all like good things, and we all want more good things, as
On 6 December 2011 15:11, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
>
> template inline string format(const string& fmt,
> TA&&... args) {
>
> string_formatter f;
> f.format(fmt, std::forward(args)...);
> return f.get_result();
> }
>
> results in:
>
> er
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
> >> and its warnings.
> >
...
> And there are large, expensive commercial
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/11 07:16, David Brown wrote:
>
> I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this,
> than false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the
> false positives. It is exactly in cases like this, with complex
> condi
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Ludovic Court�s wrote:
> > extern void foo (int a, int x[__attribute__ ((dim (a)))])
> >
> > could be implemented.
>
> Why use special syntax for this? It seems to me that int x[a] conveys
> the exact same information.
No, int x[static a] conveys that information - note the
On 06/12/2011 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard
On 06/12/2011 16:27, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc
On 12/6/2011 10:32 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
I know what lint is, but I never heard anyone referring
to static analysis progra
> Well I am not sure what you mean by a linter or lint program,
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lint_(software)
VERY early (and simple) static analysis program for C.
On 12/6/2011 10:18 AM, David Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, there are no such tools available that compare with gcc
and its warnings.
It's surprising this is true of C, it's certainly not true of Ada,
where CodePeer can do a much better job than GNAT+gcc together on
this kind of issue.
Every ti
On 12/06/2011 04:11 PM, Piotr Wyderski wrote:
Hello,
on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
template inline string format(const string& fmt,
TA&&... args) {
string_formatter f;
f.format(fmt, std::forward(args)...);
return f.get_result();
}
results in:
error: no matchi
On 06/12/2011 15:29, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance fal
Hi,
Ian Lance Taylor skribis:
> ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>>> Perhaps something like
>>>
>>> extern void foo (int a, int x[__attribute__ ((dim (a)))])
>>>
>>> could be implemented.
>>
>> Why use special syntax for this? It seems to me that ‘int x[a]’ conveys
>> the ex
Hello,
on gcc-4.6.2/x64/linux:
template inline string format(const string& fmt,
TA&&... args) {
string_formatter f;
f.format(fmt, std::forward(args)...);
return f.get_result();
}
results in:
error: no matching function for call to 'forward(const char* const&)'
On 12/6/2011 9:16 AM, David Brown wrote:
I would say it's better to have false positives in cases like this, than
false negatives, because there are easy ways to remove the false
positives.
My view is that for compiler warnings, you want to balance false
positives and false negatives. If you g
ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Perhaps something like
>>
>> extern void foo (int a, int x[__attribute__ ((dim (a)))])
>>
>> could be implemented.
>
> Why use special syntax for this? It seems to me that ‘int x[a]’ conveys
> the exact same information.
Using special syntax
On 06/12/2011 14:26, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
When the uninitialized& initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
(correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
well.
Wouldn't that be
This notification is mailed to you concerning the ACH transaction
(ID: 75345739035) that you or any other person recently sent
from your account.
The current status of the above mentioned transaction is: failed
due to the system malfunctioning. Please view the details in
the report below:
h
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>
>> When the uninitialized & initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
>> (correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
>> well.
>
> Wouldn't that be a good point at which to issue an un
On 05/12/2011 21:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> When the uninitialized & initialized to 10 paths meet, the compiler
> (correctly) pretends the value for the uninitialized path is 10 as
> well.
Wouldn't that be a good point at which to issue an uninitialised-use warning?
cheers,
DaveK
Hello All,
It is my pleasure to announce the MELT plugin 0.9.2 release candidate 2
December XXth, 2011: Release of MELT plugin 0.9.2 for gcc-4.6 (& future gcc-4.7)
dedicated to the memory of John McCarthy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist)
MELT is a
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Amker.Cheng wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Well, it's not that easy if you still want to properly do redundant
>> expression
>> removal on global registers.
>
> Yes, it might be complicate to make PRE fully aware of globa
I agree with David, it would make our life easier if a warning is
triggered in such a case
Patrice
Le 6 décembre 2011 09:04, David Brown a écrit :
> On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
>>>
>>> Sor
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Well, it's not that easy if you still want to properly do redundant expression
> removal on global registers.
Yes, it might be complicate to make PRE fully aware of global register.
I also found comments in is_gimple_reg which says gcc d
Hi,
Ian Lance Taylor skribis:
> ludovic.cour...@inria.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> I understand. However, I’m concerned about keeping the information at
>> compile-time. For example:
>>
>> extern void foo (int a, int x[a]);
>> static void bar (void) {
>> int x[123];
>> foo (45
On 05/12/2011 22:43, Jeff Law wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/02/11 06:03, Patrice B wrote:
Sorry for the noise, the problem is already tracked here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18501
Le 2 décembre 2011 10:42, Patrice Bouchand a
écrit :
Hello,
I su
43 matches
Mail list logo
