Hi, please I just want to ask how to get the caribien nationality as a
syrian man and his family and the datiels about it and thanks for your help
Since the original MinGW refuses to support 64-bit, I would like to
discuss whether we should remove i686-mingw32 from the secondary
platforms list and replace it with MinGW-w64.
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 09:31:26AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 03:10:30PM +0200, Clifford Wolf wrote:
> > /tmp/cc9Aywrx.s: Assembler messages:
> > /tmp/cc9Aywrx.s:1256: Error: can't resolve `.text.unlikely'
> > {.text.unlik
Hi,
I have an interesting problem with compiling gcc 4.1.0 on
i386-unknown-linux-gnu. Building xgcc (with gcc 3.4.3) works fine.
But rebuilding the compiler with xgcc the 2nd time (with -fprofile-use)
fails with an assembler error:
$ stage1/xgcc -Bstage1/ -B/usr/i386-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -c
Hi,
I've been thinking about trampolines and nested functions in C the other
day. I really like using trampolines for callback functions, such as in
http://svn.clifford.at/spl/trunk/spl_modules/mod_xml.c
see:
static struct spl_node *handler_xml2tree(struct spl_task *task, void *data)
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:35:29PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> I.e. you could have libgcc provide one with a size that works most of the
> time
Some applications have recursions which go into a depth of 1000 and more.
Some architectures have only a few k ram. Which "a size that works most
hi,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Yes, but that avoids the difficulty, that's obvious so far.
>
> The problem is to know exactly when to pop the stack, and that is
> not trivial (longjmp, exceptions, non local gotos).
hmm.. what's about doing it gc-like. Instead
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 01:50:32PM +, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
> These can be provided in a separate module of the static libgcc, together
> with allocation and deallocation of individual trampolines from the pool
> (the latter has to be called from the epilogue of functions that use
> initia
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:28:19PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Currently, I believe, GCC combines various calls to abort in a single
> function, because it knows that none of them returns.
afaics it is more generic. It merges them because it knows that it doesn't
make any difference. Thi
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 03:01:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Most of the rest of the error handling in this project is concerned with
> the absence of the feature I loved in the IBM PL/I compilers under the
> name "SNAP;" - putting out a stack backtrace (the usual idiom for abort()
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:11:51PM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:
> 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 fu
adrresses are in the lower half of the virtual memory and
all data in the upper half. This couldn't be done with a simple change in
the operating system (unless there really aren't any executeable
addresses above the stack frame - then it could be done for the stack but
not for all ot
12 matches
Mail list logo
