On 14.2.2015 03:10, Alan Modra wrote:
> On both x86_64-linux and powerpc64-linux, a --disable-shared bootstrap
> dies with linker errors when building libcc1.so. You can't build a
> shared library using objects from the static libstdc++ (or any other
> library built without -fpic/-fPIC).
>
> OK,
On 25 November 2013 13:09, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 November 2013 06:46, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> On 11/25/2013 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:52:49PM +0100, Václav Zeman wrote:
>>>> Here is one idea for GSoC: Implement C++ locale s
On 11/25/2013 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 11:52:49PM +0100, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> Here is one idea for GSoC: Implement C++ locale support in libstdc++
>> based on POSIX 2008 uselocale()/duplocale() facilities.
>
> Doesn't glibc do that since
Hi.
Here is one idea for GSoC: Implement C++ locale support in libstdc++
based on POSIX 2008 uselocale()/duplocale() facilities.
This should bring C++ locale support, comparable to that of Glibc
platforms, to Darwin and FreeBSD (at least), instead of the current "C"
locale only support.
--
VZ
On 08/23/2013 12:12 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning
>
> Reported by "kobrien" on the Freenode IRC network, channel #gcc just
> now, I'm just sending the message.
Looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/RecentChanges shows that the GCC wiki
is being spammed a lot.
On 05/28/2013 12:20 AM, Ryan Johnson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> (please CC me in replies, not a list member)
>
> I have a large C++ app that throws exceptions to unwind anywhere from
> 5-20 stack frames when an error prevents the request from being served
> (which happens rather frequently). Works fine
On 02/10/2013 12:49 AM, Jay K wrote:
> problems compiling 4.7, with Solaris cc and/or Solaris CC (C++)
> [...]
>
> 2) given:
>
> int foo()
> {
> gcc_unreachable();
> }
>
>
> Solaris cc/CC gives a warning or maybe an error.
> It should be:
>
>
> int foo(void)
> {
> gcc_unreachable();
> retu
On 09/22/2012 07:11 AM, bd satish wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is the output of (gcc -v):
> Using built-in specs.
> COLLECT_GCC=g++
> COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/user/installed/gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.7.2/lto-wrapper
> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
> Configured with: ../configure --pre
On 14 June 2012 22:42, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 16:34 -0400, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> Well, I probably don't have a NEED for it. I've gotten along for 25+
>> years without it. :-)
>>
>> However, what prompted my inquiry is using it would've saved me tracking
>> down a
On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:37:03 +0800, Jiangning Liu wrote:
Hi,
For the following simple test case, PRE optimization hoists
computation
(s!=1) into the default branch of the switch statement, and finally
causes
very poor code generation. This problem occurs in both X86 and ARM,
and I
believe it
10 matches
Mail list logo
