On Thu, 3 Jun 2021, Martin Liška via Overseers wrote:
> On 6/2/21 4:52 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc wrote:
>> If you use Sender:-based filtering for sorting your incoming email
>> stream, I suggest switching to observing List-Id: instead, or else
>> using a regexp/substring style of Sender: matchin
It appears that create_gcov doesn't support binaries with dwarf version 5
(which is the current default).
I tried a trivial example and got reasonable gcov files for binaries with dwarf
v2, v3, and v4 but the same example with dwarf v5 produced
"File './sort' has mangled .debug_info section."
a
Hello Binutils and GCC lists[1],
I would like to propose that GNU tools consistently interpret configs with
"netbsd" as meaning ELF as opposed to a.out. Currently, newer CPUs do that, but
older ones have "netbsd" mean a.out for historical reasons, and "netbsdelf" is
used instead. This inconsist
Snapshot gcc-10-20210611 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20210611/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Here's another #pragma solution to your problem:
class Test {
# pragma GCC diagnostic push
# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wpragmas" // so GCC ignores next line
# pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wunused-private-field"
int a_;
# pragma GCC diagnostic pop
void b() {};
};
First tell GCC
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 04:03:34PM -0400, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
> You can use #pragma to disable a warning for a particular section of code:
>
> #pragma GCC diagnostic push
> #pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wattributes"
> class Test {
> [[maybe_unused]] int a_;
> void b() {};
> }
On 6/11/21 3:37 PM, Markus Faehling wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently facing a problem where I cannot get both gcc and clang
warning-free simultaneously in my project. My code looks somewhat like
this:
class Test {
int a_;
void b() {};
};
This code gives me the(usually very useful) "-Wu
On 6/11/21 9:37 PM, Markus Faehling wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently facing a problem where I cannot get both gcc and clang
warning-free simultaneously in my project. My code looks somewhat like
this:
class Test {
int a_;
void b() {};
};
This code gives me the(usually very useful) "-Wunu
Hello,
I'm currently facing a problem where I cannot get both gcc and clang
warning-free simultaneously in my project. My code looks somewhat like this:
class Test {
int a_;
void b() {};
};
This code gives me the(usually very useful) "-Wunused-private-field"
warning on clang. But bec
> On Jun 11, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> "make" at top level should build all the info manuals and man pages, as at
> present (if a suitable Sphinx version is installed), and "make install"
> should install them, in the same directories as at present.
>
> "make html"
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 19:01, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/11/21 11:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 18:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> My objection is to making our policies and tools more restrictive
> >> than they need to be. We shouldn't expect everyone to study whole
> >>
On 6/11/21 11:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 18:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
My objection is to making our policies and tools more restrictive
than they need to be. We shouldn't expect everyone to study whole
manuals just to figure out how to successfully commit a change (or
le
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 18:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
> My objection is to making our policies and tools more restrictive
> than they need to be. We shouldn't expect everyone to study whole
> manuals just to figure out how to successfully commit a change (or
> learn how to format it just the right way
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 11:02:52AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> My objection is to making our policies and tools more restrictive
> than they need to be. We shouldn't expect everyone to study whole
> manuals just to figure out how to successfully commit a change (or
> learn how to format it just t
On 6/11/21 3:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 22:16, Martin Sebor wrote:
I don't see why the script users should be subjected to this tedium
when it can be done in the script itself with (presumably) only
a little more effort. The proposed change is, IMO, a step in
the wrong
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 16:45, Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> > If you're not already doing a brief "subject" line in your git
> > commits, you're Doing It Wrong!
>
> If you don't have a subject line which is more than one word, and does not
> look l
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
> > Where languages have their own manuals, I think it's more appropriate for
> > those to go under the language-specific directories.
>
> So it will require the following folder structure:
>
> $gccroot/gcc/doc/gcc - for GCC documentation
> $gccroot/gcc/d
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> If you're not already doing a brief "subject" line in your git
> commits, you're Doing It Wrong!
If you don't have a subject line which is more than one word, and does not
look like a ChangeLog header line, and which is followed by a blank li
Hello,
I am doing PIC (Position Independant Code) code using the ARM
compiler, and effectively try to avoid the creation of the GOT (Global
Offset Table).
I've got the feeling the GOT is not convinient and goes in opposite
direction than the one we try to achieve with having PIC,
On 6/11/21 1:48 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 6/10/21 7:18 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 6/10/21 11:07 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Doing that, one has 2 unique links, that would be needed for get_option_url
function.
Plus, both :option:`-Wfoo` and :option:`-Wno-foo` references are going to work.
And I
On 6/10/21 6:49 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021, Martin Liška wrote:
1) Can we organize the new documentation in $gccroot/doc folder
similarly to what I have in texi2rst-generated repo? Would be beneficial
as we can have a single Makefile and shared content will be in a same
depth t
Hello.
First, note that -O is equal to -O1 :) I noticed we don't use it consistently
in documentation:
$ git grep 'at.*-O1}' | cat
gcc/ada/gnat_ugn.texi:pick it based on the optimization level: 1 for
@code{-O1}, @code{-O2} or
gcc/ada/gnat_ugn.texi:The optimization level is at least @code{-O1}
On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:07 PM Erick Ochoa via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am looking for a small clarification. I understand that during late
> SIMPLE_IPA_PASSes some statically initialized global variables might
> have error_mark_node trees in their DECL_INITIAL field.
>
> I believe that I read s
Hi,
I am looking for a small clarification. I understand that during late
SIMPLE_IPA_PASSes some statically initialized global variables might
have error_mark_node trees in their DECL_INITIAL field.
I believe that I read something similar in the past about how to get
the tree expressions in these
> I was wondering where can we send a patch to add binutils (latest )
> to that docker hub image
Those images are maintained by Docker Inc. and nothing to do with the
GCC project:
https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/official_images/
"All Official Images contain a User Feedback section in their
do
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 10:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 18:06, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > By "the subject line" are you referring to what the ChangeLog calls
> > $git_description, and, AFAICS, consists of multiple lines? (Based
> > on the Example patch on the conventions page
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 22:16, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I don't see why the script users should be subjected to this tedium
> when it can be done in the script itself with (presumably) only
> a little more effort. The proposed change is, IMO, a step in
> the wrong direction.
I don't see why "improve
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 18:06, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 6/10/21 9:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 15:56, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 6/10/21 4:40 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 at 11:08, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 10
28 matches
Mail list logo
