On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 03:49:48PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> > Is there something I'm missing ? Is there a way I can still be the owner
> > of that patch and release it as I wish ?
>
> Yes. Read your co
So, I used to contribute back to gcc regularly, got overwhelmed by
other stuff, but I'm back.
Case in point: I've added stuff to OpenBSD for secure handling of trampolines.
Since trampolines require an executable stack, we want to make sure we don't
have trampolines all over the place, hence a -ft
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>The assert should not overflow. I suggest
>
>#include
>#include
>assert( n < SIZE_MAX / sizeof(int) );
>
>which requires two pieces of information that the programmer
>otherwise wouldn't need, SIZE_MAX and sizeof(type).
>
>Asking programmers to write ex
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 06:51:24PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> David Daney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | One could argue that issuing some type of diagnostic (either at
>> | compile time or run time) would be helpful for people that don't
>> |
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:23 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> As for configure scripts... autoconf -j is long overdue ;-)
>Is that the option to compile autoconf stuff into fast running
>efficient code? :-)
>But seriously, I think we need to press autoconf
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On 19 Mar 2007 19:12:35 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> similar justifications for yet another small% of slowdown have been
>> given routinely for over 5 years now. small% build up; and when they
>> build up, they don't not to be con
On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 06:46:09PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Specifically, because we value reliability over speed and strict
> > standard conformance...
> Seems to me that programs that strictly meet the standard of the language
> they are written in would be more reliable than programs th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>I don't think doing any of both is a good idea. Authors of the affected
>programs should adjust their makefiles instead - after all, the much more
>often reported problems are with -fstrict-aliasing, and this one also doesn't
>get any special treatment by
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>On Saturday 17 September 2005 17:45, you wrote:
>> That's a real misunderstanding. There are many warnings that are very
>> specialized, and if -Wall really turned on all warnings, it would be
>> essentially useless. The idea behind -Wall is that it repres
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Both OpenSSL and Apache programmers did this, in carefully reviewed
>code which was written in response to a security report. They simply
>didn't know that there is a potential problem. The reason for this
>gap in knowledge isn't quite clear to me.
Well
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Samuel Smythe wrote:
>> It is well-known that Apple has been a significant provider of GCC
>> enhancements. But it is also probably now well-known that they have
>> opted to drop the PPC architecture in favor of an x86-based
>> architecture. Will Apple con
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 05:52:11PM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> (I expect Gabriel dos Rios to respond with something pithy here; please
> don't disappoint me!)
Funny, I don't expect any message from that signature.
Gabriel dos Reis, on the other hand, may have something to say...
I've got my build on OpenBSD-i386 stuck in a loop compiling
stage2/xgcc -Bstage2/ -B/usr/local/i386-unknown-openbsd3.7/bin/ -c -O2 -g
-fomit-frame-pointer -gnatpg -gnata -I- -I. -Iada
-I/spare/ports/lang/gcc/4.1/w-gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc-4.1-20050528/gcc/ada
/spare/ports/lang/gcc/4.1/w-gcc-4.1
On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 08:59:00PM +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> Marc Espie wrote:
> >Sorry for chiming in after all this time, but I can't let this pass.
> >
> >Scott, where on earth did you pick up your trig books ?
>
> Sorry, too, but why one earth do modern t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/co/2005/05/r5091.pdf
> "An Open Question to Developers of Numerical Software", by
> W. Kahan and D. Zuras
Doesn't look publically accessible from my machine...
Sorry for chiming in after all this time, but I can't let this pass.
Scott, where on earth did you pick up your trig books ?
The mathematical functions sine and cosine are defined everywhere.
There is absolutely 0 identity involving them which doesn't apply all
over the real, or the complex plane
How about replacing that piece of junk that is called libtool with
something else ?
Preferably something that works.
Between it's really poor quoting capabitilities, and the fact that
half the tests are done at configure time, and half the tests are done
at run-time, libtool is really poor engine
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>The alternative of course is to do only crossbuilds. Is it reasonable
>to say that, for platforms where a bootstrap is no longer feasible, a
>successful crossbuild is an acceptable test procedure to use instead?
No.
I've been playing enough with crossbu
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 09:27:32AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> Or are you just way behind in your reading?
Way behind.
I've read the discussion, I've seen nothing looking like my argument,
so I posted my reply.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>GCC's primary purpose is to be the compiler for the GNU system. It is
>used for many other purposes too, and it is good for GCC to serve more
>purposes, but they're not as important for the GNU Project, even
>though they are all important for some users.
The thing I did for OpenBSD 3.7 is patch the gcc-3.3.x we use:
- On OpenBSD, by default, trampoline code generation is disabled in gcc
3.3.5. Code requiring trampolines will not compile without
-ftrampolines. The warning flag -Wtrampolines can be used to locate
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 01:25:34PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > I have certainly seen it used, but you may well be right that it is
> > seldom used. It is certainly reasonable to consider removing this
> > extension from C and C++. Anyone using tha
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Well as I said above, trampolines or an equivalent are currently critically
>needed by some front ends (and of course by anyone using the (very useful IMO)
>extension of nested functions in C).
This is your opinion, but I've yet to find an actual piece of
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:24:20AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Not quite, Marc is suggesting that -pedantic be the default if I read
> the above statement correctly.
Yep.
Except it's probably too late for that, and there is stuff in -pedantic
that is downright obnoxious (because every C compiler
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>People do break Ada bootstrap because they don't configure and test Ada,
>they don't configure Ada because they complained about Ada build
>machinery being non standard, delaying Ada build machinery changes will
>only make things worse for Ada bootstrap s
Long term, gcc extensions mean a given piece of code will only be
compilable by gcc. If the extension is succesful enough, it may
even be adopted by other compilers, such as Intel CC. Happened
in the past.
Personally, I tend to not like gcc extensions. Especially the silent
variety. Now that the C
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>AFAIK, Subversion uses UTC time internally, but always works with the
>local time of the user for the interface (I don't know what happens for
>ambiguous dates, due to summer/winter times). Anyway, Subversion has
>global revisions, so that doing a dichotom
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Complete alphabetical order is not in the cards for diff, at least for
>diffs involving server side (diffs that are client side are easily
>sorted by filename).
>This is because it would require losing the "streaminess" of the
>protocol (unlike cvs, the cl
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> I should note that svn treats it's remote connections as disposable, so
>> svn+ssh will probably connect more than once for things like remote
>> diffs. So if it takes a while to authenticate, this may not be your
>> best bet if yo
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Thanks Jon,
>
>Can anyone throw more light on this.
>
Stop telling us what you want to do, explain to us WHY you want to do
it.
There are lots of different reasons for which you might want to know
more about temporary object generation, and we can probab
30 matches
Mail list logo
