Hi All,
Good day for everyone .
We benchmarked the code coverage algorithms like
a)Optimal Edge Profiling
(ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/pub/techreports/1991/TR1031.pdf .) that are
adopted by GCC and LLVM
b)Dominator Leaf
instrumentation(http://users.sdsc.edu/~mtikir/publications/papers/issta02.pdf)
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> > is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> > to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
>
> You are probably right that
On 14 October 2014 01:12, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Converting a pointer to an array to a pointer to a constant array
> is safe. Converting a pointer to a pointer to a pointer to a pointer
> to a constant is not (as the CFAQ points out).
You are probably right that it is safe. Unfortunately, C consi
Gentlemen, your feedback would be greatly appreciated!
I was investigating why locals were not being early dumped, and realized
Michael's patch was skipping decls_for_scope() unless
DECL_STRUCT_FUNCTION->gimple_df was set. I assume this was to wait
until location information was available. T
Am Tue, 14 Oct 2014 00:05:47 +0100
Jonathan Wakely :
> On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
> > Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> >
> > Thank you for your quick response.
> >
> >> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
> >>
> >> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>
> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
>
> (If others have comments that are not covered in
On 14 October 2014 00:01, Martin Uecker wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez :
>
> Thank you for your quick response.
>
>> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>>
>> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>>
>> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
>> htt
Manuel López-Ibáñez :
Thank you for your quick response.
> > Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
>
> This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
>
> For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
The option '-Win
> Could we have an option to turn these warnings off?
This will be controlled by a new option in GCC 5.0.
For the details and the answer to your other questions, see
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#constmismatch
(If others have comments that are not covered in the FAQ, or believe
the answer there c
Hi all,
although this is a problem of the C standard, I still
find it annoying that the following code produces warnings
about incompatible pointer types (this has been discussed
before, see below):
extern void test(const double x[2][2]);
void foo(void)
{
double x[2][2];
const
On 10/13/14 22:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:01:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> Is it correct?
>
> This mailing list is for development of GCC, not the right place to learn
> C++. Please ask either on gcc-help mailing list, or on some C++ user
> forums.
>
OK, since I am
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:01:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> > Is it correct?
This mailing list is for development of GCC, not the right place to learn
C++. Please ask either on gcc-help mailing list, or on some C++ user
forums.
Jakub
On 10/13/14 21:59, Chen Gang wrote:
>
> On 10/13/14 21:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
>>> my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
>>>
>>> For me, I guess:
>>>
On 10/13/14 21:31, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
>> my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
>>
>> For me, I guess:
>>
>> - If the constant number is defined in the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:10:31PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> Oh, yes. Originally I got this warning by compiling Qemu. And sorry for
> my sample (test.cc) may be not quite precise.
>
> For me, I guess:
>
> - If the constant number is defined in the header file, and never be
>used, our g++ ne
On 10/13/14 18:53, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 10/12/2014 10:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>>[root@localhost qemu_cc]# cat test.cc
>>const char n() { return 1; }
>>const char c = n();
>>[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O0 -c -o test.o
>> test.cc
>>[root@localhost qe
On 10/13/14 18:58, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 October 2014 16:32, Chen Gang wrote:
>> Hello All:
>>
>> I found an issue about g++, it is OK for "-Wall -O0", but will report
>> -Wunused-variable for "-Wall -O1|2|3|s". The original version (e.g.
>> gcc 4.8.3 redhat version) does not report warning
On 12 October 2014 16:32, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello All:
>
> I found an issue about g++, it is OK for "-Wall -O0", but will report
> -Wunused-variable for "-Wall -O1|2|3|s". The original version (e.g.
> gcc 4.8.3 redhat version) does not report warning for "-Wall -O?".
>
> The related operation:
>
On 10/12/2014 10:32 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# cat test.cc
const char n() { return 1; }
const char c = n();
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O0 -c -o test.o test.cc
[root@localhost qemu_cc]# /usr/local/bin/g++ -Wall -O2 -c -o test.o test.cc
19 matches
Mail list logo
