On 16/01/2014 03:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 16 January 2014 11:11, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 17/11/2013 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 17 November 2013 15:40, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
For "control reaches end of non-void function", I haven't activated by
default a
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 07:39:12PM +0100, Winfried Magerl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since "trunk revision 206525" I'm unable to bootstrap
> gcc with '-O3' as optimisation. No problem until
> revision 2065250.
>
> From the diff-output it looks like this entry from
> ChangeLog is the only candidate:
>
> --
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:05:23PM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> a couple of tsan tests:
>
> c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c
> g++.dg/tsan/default_options.C
>
> relatively often fail for me at various optimization levels (eg, in
> my last run the former at -O2: no WARNING: ThreadSanitizer
Hi,
a couple of tsan tests:
c-c++-common/tsan/simple_race.c
g++.dg/tsan/default_options.C
relatively often fail for me at various optimization levels (eg, in my
last run the former at -O2: no WARNING: ThreadSanitizer... thus the test
failed).
Is this a known issue? The machine I'm t
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Unfortunately, I am not clear on how to check for format specifiers in string.
> Should I do it manually by checking the format string for specifiers
> and call abort if found a no-argument specifier,
> or is there a better way to do it ?
I'll lea
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 07:51:51PM +0400, Ilya Verbin wrote:
> I have 2 questions concerning OpenMP 4.0 specification.
>
>
> 1. Do I understand correctly that every "declare target" directive should be
> closed with "end declare target"? E.g. in this example GCC marks both foo1
> and
> foo2 wi
Hi Jakub,
I have 2 questions concerning OpenMP 4.0 specification.
1. Do I understand correctly that every "declare target" directive should be
closed with "end declare target"? E.g. in this example GCC marks both foo1 and
foo2 with "omp declare target" attribute:
#pragma omp declare target
in
Hi!
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 03:54:31 +, "Joseph S. Myers"
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > > x86 Hurd (32-bit, hard-float): /lib/ld.so (that is, GCC uses that name
> > > with -dynamic-linker so in PT_INTERP; my understanding of
> > > shlib-versions is that it gets the SON
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
>
>> Souce of these warnings are typically calls to error() and friends.
>> In C and C++ front ends there are many calls of error (errmsg).
>> errmsg is in many cases, assigned the return va
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 15:19 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Therefore, I point out that FSF can no longer prevent proprietary
> vendors from plugging into a free compiler to improve their tools.
[snip]
> I also think it bears noticing that nobody outside of Microsoft seems
> to particularly want to
Hi,
I noticed there is a regression of 4.8 against ancient 4.5 in vectorization on
our port. After a bit investigation, I found following code that prefer
even|odd version instead of lo|hi one. This is obviously the case for AltiVec
and maybe some other targets. But even|odd (expanding to a seri
"Eric S. Raymond" writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor :
>> I'm sympathetic to our comments regarding GCC vs. clang. But I'm not
>> sure I grasp your proposed solution. GCC does support plugins, and
>> has supported them for a few releases now.
>
> Then I don't understand why David Kastrup's question was
12 matches
Mail list logo
