On 10/17/2017 03:55 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 13/10/17 02:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] We wrote a script scrape those off the online HTML manual
and create a "database" mapping options to GCC versions they
were introduced in (or first documented in, as not every option
always gets documen
On 14/10/17 16:32, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
Thanks for the pointers. I'm not currently using auto tools, but I might
end up having to use them, or cmake. Having these macros would help. I
still wish we had `-Wno-unknown-warnings` though - it would make life much
simpler.
Despite the feedback that
On 13/10/17 02:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
[*] We wrote a script scrape those off the online HTML manual
and create a "database" mapping options to GCC versions they
were introduced in (or first documented in, as not every option
always gets documented as it gets added).
I don't understand why you
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Geoff Wozniak wrote:
> The code structure suggests that we should
> either do an IPA pass on GIMPLE or we work as an assembler pass, thus
> forgoing work on RTL at all. Is this is what we should be doing?
When I first looked at the GCC codebase, it seemed
On 17 October 2017 at 16:23, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/17/2017 03:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> Given that we build with -fno-exceptions, what are we guaranteed about
>> what happens when "new" fails? (am I right in thinking that a failed
>> allocation returns NULL in this case?). Is XNEWVEC
On 10/17/2017 03:57 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Given that we build with -fno-exceptions, what are we guaranteed about
> what happens when "new" fails? (am I right in thinking that a failed
> allocation returns NULL in this case?). Is XNEWVEC preferable here?
No, that's incorrect. Even with -fn
On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 19:46 -0400, tbsaunde+...@tbsaunde.org wrote:
> From: Trevor Saunders
>
> gcc/ChangeLog:
>
> 2017-07-31 Trevor Saunders
>
> * cse.c (find_comparison_args): Make visited a unique_ptr.
> * lto-streamer-out.c (write_global_references): Make data a
> uniqu
On 17/10/17 00:19, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 07:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 16 October 2017 at 08:25, Ramón García wrote:
>>> ping
>>
>> As previously stated, nobody is working on it.
>
> Not because nobody cares, but because of lack of time against higher
> priority things.
>
On 10/10/2017 04:04 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 7:45 AM, Nick Clifton wrote:
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> I would like to update the top level libtool files (libtool.m4,
>> ltoptions.m4, ltsugar.m4, ltversion.m4 and lt~obsolete.m4) used by
>> gcc, gdb and binutils. Currently we
