On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 8:01 AM Martin Uecker wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> one area where the Linux kernel people are unhappy with C's
> memory model is where they now have to use the READ_ONCE,
> WRITE_ONCE macros. These are cases where they do not want
> a compiler to duplicate a load, e.g. to relo
Hi all,
one area where the Linux kernel people are unhappy with C's
memory model is where they now have to use the READ_ONCE,
WRITE_ONCE macros. These are cases where they do not want
a compiler to duplicate a load, e.g. to reload a value
later because registers were not available to cache it.
Current `-Mmodules` output is based on [P1602R0](wg21.link/p1602r0), which
speaks about a set of Makefile rules that can handle modules, with the help of
module mappers and a modified GNU Make.
The proposal came out in 2019, and the output of those rules was implemented
at GCC in 2020. However, so
Snapshot gcc-12-20250227 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20250227/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
Hello GCC Rust Team,
My name is Bright Andoh, and I’m a Computer Engineering student at the
University of Alabama. I’m wrapping up my freshman year and have
experience working with Rust and C. Last fall, I collaborated on some
Rust projects with a friend, and I’m eager to deepen my understanding,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 8:19 AM Tom Kacvinsky wrote:
> Hi Kyrylo,
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 4:01 AM Kyrylo Tkachov
> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Feb 2025, at 20:40, Tom Kacvinsky via Gcc wrote:
>> >
>> > I am trying to find where the aarch64 SIMD built in types are defined in
>> > GCC.
>> > For instan
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 08:44:25PM +, Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Can you please confirm if we should add a version of this operator that
> > need not be diagnosed under pedantic mode? If so, I'll propose this
>
> I'm doubtful of
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> Can you please confirm if we should add a version of this operator that
> need not be diagnosed under pedantic mode? If so, I'll propose this
I'm doubtful of the need for a second variant, but in any case the
starting point should be a pat
Hi Joseph, Aaron,
(Aaron, there's no code in this email, so you should be able to read it,
I guess. We're just discussing the naming of the operator.)
Context for readers: The C Committee has finally accepted this as
_Countof instead of _Lengthof, due to the concerns regarding confusion
with st
Status
==
The GCC development branch which will become GCC 15 is still in
stage4, open for regression and documentation fixes only. We've
been in this stage for 6 weeks now and are slowly progressing
towards a release.
Besides of tackling the remaining P1 bugs also have an eye on
the testsui
10 matches
Mail list logo