On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> we should limit to a very small
> set of colors, because not so many colors are actually very readable and
> perhaps make the color sets configurable somehow (things might be different
> if people use normally black characters on white backg
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
> discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
> no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
I was asked "wassup with Robert?". All I can say s that
it is a de
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:11:48PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Lawrence Crowl writes:
>
> > On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result
> >> was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of
> >> the three things:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I personally think it would be an excellent idea. Even clang's C++
> error messages can be long. A simple use of color is an excellent way
> to draw the eye to the more important parts of the message. If the
> color is not available,
Lawrence Crowl writes:
> On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result
>> was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of
>> the three things: ranges, color and fix-it hints?
>
> There are many issues with color. Does y
здаровчик, красавчик.))
uhusnarirw.pochtamt.ruКузичка_Кашканова моё имя там...!!)
если есть желание познакомиться поближе...
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> I find the color output of Clang just beautiful and, in my opinion,
> color support in GCC would make it a bit more beautiful and attract
> new users, so it is a much better use of developer's time than fixing
> yet another obscure dia
On 13 April 2012 03:40, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do
>> this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question
>> is whether this is something that GCC
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:42:19AM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> I would like to have color output. And since nobody is paying me to do
> this work, I'd rather work on what I would like to have. The question
> is whether this is something that GCC wants to have.
>
> If the answer is NO, that
I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No one responded on- or
off-list, which was both surprising and confusing.
Thanks! :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Sun, 4/8/12, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> From: Rick Hodgin
>
> ...I think [GCC] is, without a doubt, the best GNU
> project
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20120412 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20120412/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 13 April 2012 00:17, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>>> wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
[]
Of course, the major quest
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 22:53, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> yes ..
>
> Excellent, thanks, and thanks for the link to the pdf, I hadn't seen
> it before and GCC does do pretty poorly with those examples.
The talk was given pretty recently ..
David
On 12 April 2012 22:53, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> yes ..
Excellent, thanks, and thanks for the link to the pdf, I hadn't seen
it before and GCC does do pretty poorly with those examples.
> thanks,
>
> David
>
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 22:3
On 4/12/12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> So given your ideal implementation, if the user-visible result
> was exactly like the one in Clang, will you be happy with any of
> the three things: ranges, color and fix-it hints?
There are many issues with color. Does your reader have any
color deficie
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>[]
>>> Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC
>>> interested on any
On 12 April 2012 23:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>[]
>> Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC
>> interested on any of this?
>>
>> Would some reviewer reject patches implementing them?
>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>[]
> Of course, the major question is: Are the decision makers in GCC
> interested on any of this?
>
> Would some reviewer reject patches implementing them?
I suspect decisions will be based on the implementations the
yes ..
thanks,
David
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 22:32, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from
>> this slide: http://ecn.channel9.msdn.com/events/GoingNative12/GN12Clang.pdf
>> with trunk
On 12 April 2012 22:32, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from
> this slide: http://ecn.channel9.msdn.com/events/GoingNative12/GN12Clang.pdf
> with trunk gcc. In some cases, gcc's warning matches that of clang but
> in majority of cases, gc
End of thread for me, remove me from the reply lists, thanks
discussion is going nowhere, at this stage my vote is for
no change whatever in the way warnings are handled.
Hi Jonathan,
I think the wiki page is a great idea! Thanks for doing this.
I am planning to open PRs for all the issues where GCC is worse. I
think it would be nice to have even more examples where GCC is better.
Examples where GCC is worse can be added to
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Better_Diagnosti
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the
>> observation.
>>
>>> and
>>> nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
>
>
> I think you don't know what
On 4/12/2012 5:40 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
It isn't non-sense just because you decide so or you don't like the observation.
and
nonsense now, this has nothing to do with incompleteness!
I think you don't know what incompleteness is about, yes, it is
nonsense, because no one can make any
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>>> There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
>>> world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
>>> monotonically increasing version numbers, i
On 4/12/2012 5:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
There's nothing more ambiguous than saying that something is final in a
world where perfection is never achieved. That's why software has
monotonically increasing version numbers, instead of just one that means "this
is done now".
As I observed
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> It would even allow -Winf for the
>>> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
>>> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
>>> -Wover9000.
>>
>> Do we ha
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
>
> No you don't. You said:
>
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater t
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> There is
>> little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
>
> Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
> control used to have lots of files lying arou
Thanks for preparing the wiki page. I have looked at the examples from
this slide: http://ecn.channel9.msdn.com/events/GoingNative12/GN12Clang.pdf
with trunk gcc. In some cases, gcc's warning matches that of clang but
in majority of cases, gcc either emits no warnings or worse ones. The
warnings in
On 12 April 2012 16:49, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> It would even allow -Winf for the
>> sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-actually-useful
>> -Wreally-really-all that turns on *all* possible warnings. Or
>> -Wover9000.
>
> Do we have bugzilla entry for that?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug
On 12/04/2012 16:47, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I keep talking about useful *warnings*, you keep talking about *numbers*.
No you don't. You said:
>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>>> creates a
On 12/04/2012 17:03, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> There is
> little ambiguity left by -Wreally-all-of-them-damn-it :-)
Actually, no, as anyone could tell you who before they discovered version
control used to have lots of files lying around called "foo.final.c",
"foo.final.reallyfinal.c", "foo.fi
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> Nice! What version of gdb has this support?
7.4.
Tom
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 11:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Two more examples, then I'll save it for a wiki page instead of the
>> mailing list:
>
> And here it is:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison
Thanks; this is useful.
-- G
On 12 April 2012 11:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Two more examples, then I'll save it for a wiki page instead of the
> mailing list:
And here it is:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ClangDiagnosticsComparison
On 4/12/12 3:40 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Diego" == Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> Tom, I'm thinking of that patch on black listing functions. There was
Diego> also the idea of a command that would only step in the outermost
Diego> function call of an expression.
That patch went in. The new c
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> Tom, I'm thinking of that patch on black listing functions. There was
Diego> also the idea of a command that would only step in the outermost
Diego> function call of an expression.
That patch went in. The new command is called "skip".
I don't thin
On 4/12/12 3:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
reload the page?
By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still
spinning saying the page is loading!
Yes. I'
On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
> reload the page?
By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still
spinning saying the page is loading!
> Opening the page in a new tab shows the changes ha
Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
reload the page?
Opening the page in a new tab shows the changes have been saved, but
the page still keeps loading. Is there some kind of re-indexing going
on which is incredibly inefficient? Or does the moinmoinwiki code
simp
Quite lengthy but very interesting mail! It took me a while to formulate a
proper reply :)
> Feedback can be scarce, but don't let that stop you from submitting a
> proposal.
> Either way, can you keep me informed about any progress? I might wish to help
> though that would probably be later in t
Robert Dewar escreveu:
> On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
>> it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
>> & and | .
>
> There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the o
On 4/12/12 11:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The *-rtems4* toolchains I supply for RTEMS currently are hosted on
CentOS5+6, openSUSE 11.3+12.1, Fedora 15+16+17, mingw32 and cygwin,
using these OSes' native toolchains.
Other folks have reported to build these toolchains under different
*BSDs and M
Hello All
It is my pleasure to announce the MELT plugin release 0.9.5 for GCC 4.6 & 4.7
MELT is a high-level domain specific language to extend GCC (the Gnu Compiler
Collection).
See http://gcc-melt.org/ for more.
The MELT plugin 0.9.5 (for GCC 4.6 & 4.7) is available from
http://gcc-melt.org/
On 04/12/2012 04:52 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>>> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
>>> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
>>
>>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
>>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they a
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
>> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
>
>
> No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimizatio
Hi,
Basile Starynkevitch skribis:
> My feeling is that the plugin ability of GCC should help academia to work
> more on (that
> is, "inside") GCC, to only to use GCC.
Yes, except that, on one hand, they have a library stack with stable
APIs, and on the other, an otherwise quite stable API that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
>> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
>> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
>
> It woul
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gab
On 04/12/2012 04:23 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> because -Os says it optimizes for size, the expectation is clear.
> -O3 does not necessarily give better optimization than -O2.
No, but it does mean that GCC turns on more optimization options.
"Optimize yet more. -O3 turns on all optimizations
Thank you Ian, hopefully I will be compatible then for a long time, as Larry
Wall would say "at least until the heat death of the Universe".
I can't "ignore it" :) My build system cannot handle "include_next" - it
cannot handle the situation where you are finding a header file in one -I
direct
On 12 April 2012 16:33, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> For warnings you put a higher number to get more warnings. Yes,
> you may find that you get too many warnings and they are not
> useful. Remedy: reduce the number after -W :-)
It would even allow -Winf for the
sometimes-requested-but-probably-not-act
On 04/12/2012 02:32 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think
there is no need for a bootstrap?
No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those targets.
I want to deci
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Ultimately, it's a matter of taste and experience. I'm going to find
it hard to write for people who don't know the relative precedence of
& and | .
There are probably some programmers who completely know ALL the operator
precedence rules in C. Ther
On 4/12/2012 11:23 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
What exactly do you put in -Wn to make it give *more* warning?
I can think of a reduced number of switch that would give you
more warning on a specific program without them bein
On 4/12/2012 10:48 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Certainly, everything that adds to clarity (and has no runtime costs!)
is desirable. But adding parentheses may not add to clarity if doing
so also obfuscates the code. There is a cost to the reader due to a
blizzard of syntactically redundant parenth
On 12/04/2012 16:06, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
>>> wrote:
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> People easily associates some ord
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> What is nonsensical there?
>>
>>> But they *are* ordinal.
>>
>>
>> Now? What is the order?
>
>
> less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
> ordered than that!
What exactly do you
On 4/12/2012 11:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
What is nonsensical there?
But they *are* ordinal.
Now? What is the order?
less warnings to more warnings, what could be more
ordered than that!
It works just fine for -O,
Exactly what happens with -O? -On does not necessarily
generate
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
the greater the better
On 12/04/2012 15:55, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> People easily associates some ordering to numbers (usually
>>> the greater the better or in this case the worse) which
>>> creates another set of co
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
>> -W1: default
>> -W2: equivalent to
On 04/12/2012 03:36 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
>>
>> Using tw
On 12/04/2012 15:43, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
> -W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
> -W1: default
> -W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
> -W3: equivalent to the current -Wal
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
>>>
>>>
>>> I like this suggestion a lot.
On 4/12/2012 10:26 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Me too!
I also like short switches, but gcc mostly favors long
hard-to-type not-n
On 4/12/2012 9:30 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Sorry for the confusion: I intended to write
I would also suggest that your competent programmer would know what
they don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing
code they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Using two different defin
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the b
On 04/12/2012 02:03 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
>> don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
>> they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
>
> Yes, of course I 1
Hi,
(Sorry for the delay.)
I suppose the proposed API doesn’t cover all the needs of your Python
bindings and their applications, does it? How do you plan to export the
GIMPLE and tree.h APIs?
Regarding iterators, there are things like:
GCC_IMPLEMENT_PUBLIC_API(bool)
gcc_cfg_for_each_block
On 4/12/2012 6:44 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
I would also suggest that a competent programmer would know what they
don't know; when reading code they'd look it up, when writing code
they'd insert parentheses for clarity.
Yes, of course I 100% agree with that. But then by your definition
code that
On 4/12/12 6:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
How about a warning level?
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Indeed.
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think
there is no need for a bootstrap?
No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those
targets. I want to decide what we should recommend as a minimum g+
On 04/12/2012 10:46 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
On 12 April 2012 11:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
> And since yesterday GCC shows
>
> t.C:2:10: error: expected ';' after class definition
> class a {}
> ^
> t.C:6:1: error: expected ';' after struct definition
> }
> ^
>
> as we now enabled -fdiagnostics-show-caret by default.
Yep :-)
B
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently.
>>>
>>> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's
>>> diagnostics
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
>
> The reason why GCC's code is very hard to hack is not simple. In part,
> this is because GCC use a very old, extremely hard to understand build
> system. In part, this is because GCC developer are more focused on
> fixing bugs or adding new f
2012/4/12 Robert Dewar :
> On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
>
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
>>
>> in the code I
On 11/04/2012 09:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>
Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
means somethin
Hello,
As suggested by Gerald Pfeifer.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
--- extensions.html.~1.51.~ 2011-09-28 01:45:17.0 +0200
+++ extensions.html 2012-04-12 12:11:09.0 +0200
@@ -26,6 +26,19 @@ maintainers, not our mailing lists.
to ease development of GCC plugin-like extensions.
+http://r
On 04/12/2012 11:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Manu has filed lots of bugs in bugzilla with specific comparisons of
> GCC's diagnostics to Clang's.
>
> I'll start a page on the GCC wiki but I hope others will add to it.
> The people asking to see results should be the ones doing the
> compariso
On 11 April 2012 19:41, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently.
>>
>> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's
>> diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was
>> writte
On 4/12/2012 5:55 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
... and it's quite possible that such bugs resulting from adding
parentheses means that the programmer "fixing" the code didn't
actually know the right precedence!
or that the layout (which is what in practice we should rely on
to make things clear with
Robert Dewar writes:
>> I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
>> introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
>> tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
>> in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is really well kn
On 4/12/2012 4:55 AM, Fabien Chêne wrote:
I've got a radically different experience here, real bugs were
introduced while trying to remove this warning, and as far as I can
tell, I've never found any bugs involving precedence of&& and || --
in the code I'm working on --, whose precedence is rea
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep
>> enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them really
>> should be at least by default considered just as normal statements
>> (e.g. g
2012/4/11 Ian Lance Taylor :
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would not want it on by default since
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think there
is no need for a bootstrap?
--
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH
Address : Obere Lagerstr. 30, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone : +49 89 18 90 80 79-6
Fax : +49 89 18 90 80 79-9
E-Mail : sebas
90 matches
Mail list logo
