On Oct 19, 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach for configuring
>> GCC. e.g. AC_SUBDIRS in the top level?
> ('AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS' you mean.) You know, often it just takes som
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:43 AM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2023-10-19T11:57:33+0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Okt 19 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> >> On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 7:52 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
>
> Note that the C++ warning is for jumping over a declaration,
> which is generally allowed in C but not in C++.
>
> Martin
(Also note that in C, there's -Wjump-misses-init for this, which is
enabled by -Wc++-compat, which isn't enabled b
Snapshot gcc-11-20231019 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11-20231019/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 11 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hi Richard,
> On 19 Oct 2023, at 22:49, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Iain Sandoe writes:
>> I am being bitten by a problem that falls out from the code that emits
>>
>> .arch Armv8.n-a+crc
>>
>> when the arch is less than Armv8-r.
>> The code that does this, in gcc/common/config/aarch64 i
Iain Sandoe writes:
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> I am being bitten by a problem that falls out from the code that emits
>
> .arch Armv8.n-a+crc
>
> when the arch is less than Armv8-r.
> The code that does this, in gcc/common/config/aarch64 is quite recent
> (2022-09).
Heh. A workaround for one as
correction ...
> On 19 Oct 2023, at 17:41, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>
> I am being bitten by a problem that falls out from the code that emits
>
> .arch Armv8.n-a+crc
>
> when the arch is less than Armv8-r.
> The code that does this, in gcc/common/config/aarch64 is quite r
Hi Richard,
I am being bitten by a problem that falls out from the code that emits
.arch Armv8.n-a+crc
when the arch is less than Armv8-r.
The code that does this, in gcc/common/config/aarch64 is quite recent
(2022-09).
--
(I admit the permutations are complex and I might have m
Thank you for your message. Indeed, the -pedantic flag gives me the
warning I expect. -O (as suggested in another response) does not.
Eric
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 7:49 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
>
>
> GCC supports this as an extension.
>
> Mixing declarations and code is allowed in C99 and C23
On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 2:39 PM Hanke Zhang wrote:
>
> Hi Richard
> I get it, thank you again.
>
> And I got another problem, so I'd like ask it by the way. Can the left
> shift of the induction variable in a loop be optimized as a constant?
> Like the code below:
>
> int ans = 0;
> int width = ra
On 19/10/2023 12:39, Eric Sokolowsky via Gcc wrote:
I am using gcc 13.2 on Fedora 38. Consider the following program.
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("Enter a number: ");
int num = 0;
scanf("%d", &num);
switch (num)
{
case 1:
int a =
Note that the C++ warning is for jumping over a declaration,
which is generally allowed in C but not in C++.
Martin
Am Donnerstag, dem 19.10.2023 um 13:49 +0200 schrieb Martin Uecker:
>
>
> GCC supports this as an extension.
>
> Mixing declarations and code is allowed in C99 and C23
> will
GCC supports this as an extension.
Mixing declarations and code is allowed in C99 and C23
will also allow placing labels before declarations and at
the end of a compound statement. GCC supports all this
also in earlier language modes.
See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Mixed-Labels-and-
I am using gcc 13.2 on Fedora 38. Consider the following program.
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("Enter a number: ");
int num = 0;
scanf("%d", &num);
switch (num)
{
case 1:
int a = num + 3;
printf("The new number is %d.\n", a);
b
Hi!
On 2023-10-19T11:57:33+0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Okt 19 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach for configuring
>>> GCC. e.g. AC_SUBDIRS in the top level?
>>
>> ('AC
On Okt 19 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach for configuring
>> GCC. e.g. AC_SUBDIRS in the top level?
>
> ('AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS' you mean.) You know, often it just ta
Hi!
On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach for configuring
> GCC. e.g. AC_SUBDIRS in the top level?
('AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS' you mean.) You know, often it just takes someone to
ask the right questions... ;-)
Wh
17 matches
Mail list logo
