On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 09:40, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote:
> One annoying thing about GCC is that, for x86 if I need to write I piece of
> inline assembly then I
> have to do it twice: one in AT&T syntax and one in Intel syntax.
Why? A default is merely a default. I don't really see why changing
that
Hello! I don't know all the details, and it surprises me nobody is
asking for them. Let me be the first.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 23:03, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I’m a white dude with a British accent.
> /Of course/ I have white male privilege.
So, this text makes me feel sorry for the author, but
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 12:50, Hi-Angel wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 09:55, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 9/11/19 2:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > On Sep 11 2019, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> > >
> > >> I was wondering what is
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 09:55, Nicholas Krause wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/19 2:30 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Sep 11 2019, Nicholas Krause wrote:
> >
> >> I was wondering what is the easiest way to allow source tree wide
> >> ctags.
> > There is make TAGS, which uses etags.
Note: over time on the
I never could understand, why field reordering was removed from GCC? I
mean, I know that it's prohibited in C and C++, but, sure, GCC can
detect whether it possibly can influence application behavior, and if
not, just do the reorder.
The veto is important to C/C++ as programming languages, but not
On 13 October 2017 at 17:02, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:06 AM, Sebastian Huber
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to update the documentation of these compiler flags and have
>> some questions. The -ffunction-sections and -fdata-sections documentation
>> is currently:
>
Below is a sample code to test. GCC with the option allegedly says
that the line «obj = {0};» isn't initializes «mystruct::b» member to
anything, although it really is.
struct mystruct{
int a;
int b[2];
};
int main(){
mystruct obj = {1,{2,3}};
printf("%i\n", obj.b[
