On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Yes, color can enhance the messages. I don't think we disagree
on that. My point was that color is a harder problem that many
people understand. For instance, there is no set of colors that
meet web contrast standards against both black and white bac
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Chiheng Xu wrote:
> The rest, 440 or so of them, is below 50 KB, which contribute 75% of
The rest, 440 or so of them, is below 50 KB, which contribute 25% of
--
Chiheng Xu
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> *) gcc implementation has lots of hard coded TREE_OPERAND (exp, nn)
>>
>> e.g.
>> exp->as_component_ref().get_field() ..
>> exp->as_mem_access().get_base() ...
>> exp->as_mem_acesss().get_address
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
>> two hierarchies for gcc: one for values rooted at ValExp, and one for
>> gimple stmts rooted at Gimp
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 2:22 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> A build conversion to C++ is a precondition to any source change
>> using C++, though the two could be bundled into one patch. In any
>> event, I agree that the conversion ne
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>>
>> Certainly there are cases where the type must be made more specific,
>> and getting the wrong type here would necessarily be a dynamic check.
>> However, the number of dynamic checks can be substantially reduced.
>> To provide a specifi
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:04 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>
> I agree for the idea of converting all of GCC to C++ (whatever that means).
> I disagree for the part making the internal infrastructure easier to use,
> understand and maintain. Which means targeting mostly isolated sub-systems,
> like
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>
> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
> compiled by a C++ compiler? ...
>
Probably, if you can refrain from using some "advance" C++
features(namespace, template, etc.), you will not have such
annoyances.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>
> Yes, files are too big - but splitting them is not easy unless you can
> figure out
> a hierarchy that you can expose. The largest file is dwarf2out.c with
> 22825 lines,
> but the average is more like 2000 (just looking at gcc/*.c file
I have been working on a plugin and when I updated to gcc 4.7 I have
run into a new issue. The input program is written in go. Anyways,
my plugin modifies the function and then gimple_expand_cfg() is
called. This typically executes without any issue. However, in one
case, gcc now is aborting i
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:09 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Can the -Winf option really happen? It should be easy to make that
> turn on every -W option without having the manually list them and keep
> it up to date. Like, it should be easy, I would hope, to make that be
> automatic. Even if just used as
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
>> On 2012-04-11 01:50, 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 Wake
On 11/04/2012 20:30, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> In any case, the gfortran front end cannot really afford to loose
> developers, given that it is a hobbyist* project and given that
> attracting new developers is difficult.
>
> Tobias
>
> * In terms of the development; I assume that those who use it f
On 11/04/2012 14:21, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> However, the concern you raised is only one part of the problem. The
>> other is that, put in a simplified way, GCC is competing with LLVM about
>> new and/or non-fulltime-compiler developers. For me, it
On 11/04/2012 13:57, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Please don't dismiss this so easily. Of course this is just an example
> and nothing major, but I believe many people will use tab completion on
> the shell, for example, and code completion is really similar. On the
> shell, or with paths names, you
On 11/04/2012 22:13, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> So, you only know it's 2 tokens once you know all of tree.def? I'm
>> aware that this is just some arbitrary example, but I believe this
>> actually strengthens the concern I had.
>
> Well, if you don't know of FIELD_DECL, you won't go very far, really
On 11/04/2012 07:55, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 06:35:58PM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> The standard says they need not ignore them.
>>
>> I was thinking more about iterating over the contents. What in the
>> current code is an indirect function call inside of a loop becomes
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> 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'
On 12/04/2012 16:38, Mark Galeck (CW) wrote:
> 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
On 11/04/2012 15:12, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> This has been rather long wait from my side of the pond (moving has
> taken away quite some time from my side). But I'll be in a position
> to begin discussion on arrangements this weekend for patches to be
> submitted for GCC 4.8.
>
> I would be gratefu
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20120413 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20120413/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 12/04/2012 16:35, Robert Dewar wrote:
> 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 compl
On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> On 2012-04-11 01:50, 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
On 12/04/2012 22:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 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 o
On 2012-04-11 01:50, 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 something quite specific
On 4/12/12, 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: ranges, color and fix-it hin
On 13 April 2012 21:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/13/12 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the clue. I think Tobias Schwinge is the only person who
>> gets notifications from the GCC wiki, but maybe his mail server is the
>> culprit.
>
>
> I generally subscribe to pages I author to
On 4/13/12 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Thanks for the clue. I think Tobias Schwinge is the only person who
gets notifications from the GCC wiki, but maybe his mail server is the
culprit.
I generally subscribe to pages I author to watch for spammy edits.
Diego.
On 13 April 2012 20:28, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> Heh - that's what I do for years, too ;) I suppose sth crashes on the server
>> side when you save the page, so the communication is broken mid-way.
>
> I haven't looked at this in age
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 10:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> There is some repeat here. Over 13 years ago, people were screaming
> to have line wrapping by default -- because the diagnostic
> messages related to templates were just too long and too awful.
> I implemented line wrapping for g++ and
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Heh - that's what I do for years, too ;) I suppose sth crashes on the server
> side when you save the page, so the communication is broken mid-way.
I haven't looked at this in ages, but for GDB we had a problem with
mail notifications be
Hi!
While browsing http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/ using Firefox, I
noticed some mojibake due to the fact that the page was interpreted as
iso-8859-15, my default charset, while it is actually meant to be utf-8.
The server does not add a charset parameter to its content-type header.
Neith
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 04/13/2012 09:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We need a reliable way to tell if we are compiling for x32 through
>>> pre-defined preprocessor symbol. __LP64/__LP64__ aren't
>>> sp
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:40 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 09:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We need a reliable way to tell if we are compiling for x32 through
>> pre-defined preprocessor symbol. __LP64/__LP64__ aren't
>> specified by x86-64 psABI, although they have been added to
On 04/13/2012 09:18 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We need a reliable way to tell if we are compiling for x32 through
> pre-defined preprocessor symbol. __LP64/__LP64__ aren't
> specified by x86-64 psABI, although they have been added to
> GCC 3.3. They can't be counted on to detect x32 since not
$ ./config.guess:
i686-pc-linux-gnu
$ i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-4.7.0 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc-4.7.0
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/libexec/gcc/i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.7.0/lto-wrapper
Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.7.0/configure --disable-checking
--e
Hi,
We need a reliable way to tell if we are compiling for x32 through
pre-defined preprocessor symbol. __LP64/__LP64__ aren't
specified by x86-64 psABI, although they have been added to
GCC 3.3. They can't be counted on to detect x32 since not x86-64
compilers define them. I updated x32 psABI
On 13 April 2012 16:58, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> --- On Fri, 4/13/12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No
>> > one responded on- or off-list, which was both surprising
>> > and confusing.
>> Why? What sort of response were you expecting?
>
> I didn't have
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
--- On Fri, 4/13/12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No
> > one responded on- or off-list, which was both surprising
> > and confusing.
> Why? What sort of response were you expecting?
I didn't have a particular expectation (outside of just some kind
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature t
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>>> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until some blue
>>> sky redesign is implemented means it mi
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until some blue
>> sky redesign is implemented means it might never be implemented.
>
> This is a mischaracterization an
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Richard Guenther skribis:
>
>> 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 w
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until some blue
> sky redesign is implemented means it might never be implemented.
This is a mischaracterization and you know it.
-- Gaby
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:09:19AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> the short term desire to add color should not cloud the architectural
> concerns.
> I don't want to get into a situation when in 3 months someone come and
> complain
> that the diagnostic code is too obscure or to hard to debug,
Hello,
Richard Guenther skribis:
> 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.
How important is it t
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> I suppose we'd want to make the diagnostic machinery accessible by
> plugins so that IDEs could get an easier hand on things anyway. That
> way colorization could be achieved using a plugin, too.
Indeed, we definitely want a standard wa
On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 10:46 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The table at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html indicates most of
> the concurrency work is not done, but I think the status is better
> than it shows.
>
> If I'm not mistaken strong CAS and bidirectional fences are done.
>
> Does an
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 11:04, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote:
I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were
>
On 13 April 2012 11:04, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote:
>>> I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were
>>> implemented (the escape sequences would just mess things up when cap
On 4/13/2012 2:03 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
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 wit
The table at http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html indicates most of
the concurrency work is not done, but I think the status is better
than it shows.
If I'm not mistaken strong CAS and bidirectional fences are done.
Does anything need to be done for atomics in signal handlers?
at_quick_exit()
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 10:46, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But I don't want to turn the diagnostics machinery upside down and
>>> implement a "diagnostics internal langu
On 13 April 2012 09:27, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> I think my words above should be read in their own context, where
> their true meaning can be fully appreciated. Then, one may be able to
> appreciate that:
>
> * Saying "I don't think X is important, so I am against it and you
> should spend y
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote:
>> I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were
>> implemented (the escape sequences would just mess things up when capturing
>> compiler output in log files).
>
> There's no r
On 13 April 2012 10:46, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>
>> But I don't want to turn the diagnostics machinery upside down and
>> implement a "diagnostics internal language"
>
> I do think an internal formatting IL/IR for better representa
On 13 April 2012 02:40, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm not interested in color output, and would turn it off if it were
> implemented (the escape sequences would just mess things up when capturing
> compiler output in log files).
There's no reason it would have to do that. Git does a great job of
colourin
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> But I don't want to turn the diagnostics machinery upside down and
> implement a "diagnostics internal language"
I do think an internal formatting IL/IR for better representation is
needed for the
kind of things you would like to (e.
On 13 April 2012 08:03, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 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,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 13 April 2012 05:36, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> 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 b
On 13 April 2012 00:26, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No one responded on- or
> off-list, which was both surprising and confusing.
Why? What sort of response were you expecting?
What has GCC or GNU got to do with "fraternity between nations, for
the abol
On 13 April 2012 05:36, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 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
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> 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 mi
66 matches
Mail list logo
