Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

> The attached patch makes it clearer to me, does anyone agree? Please check this in. Thanks Jonathan! -benjamin

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

"If the old GNU extern inline behavior is desired, one can use extern inline __attribute__((__gnu_inline__)). The use of this attribute can be guarded by #ifdef __GNUC_STDC_INLINE__ which is a macro which is defined when inline has the ISO C99 behavior, or compiled with -fgnu89-inline option." I t

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

> I would start with Dave's fix, and then see if we can improve it > somehow. Presumably this is talking about Manuel's work, at least > in part? In part. Actually, the new warnings are all over the place. I've attached a summary from: http://sunsite.mff.cuni.cz/rawhide20071220-gcc43/Werror/

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:10:02PM -, Dave Korn wrote: > On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > >> > >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastruct

RE: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On 10 January 2008 22:47, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> >>> In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several >>> existing warning flags new ability to spot pro

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:32:28PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > > In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several > > existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code. > > > > Is this sentence okay?

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 11:26:29PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > In addition, improvements to the GCC infrastructure allows several > existing warning flags new ability to spot problematic code. > > Is this sentence okay? I'm not a native speaker, so I might miss a > nuance here. No, it's

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > As such, I'd like to get a general indication from the greater GCC> community > as to this plan. Does this document seem like a good idea? > (Previously, we've left this kind of document to the user community. > Often the passage of time has not been pa

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As such, I'd like to get a general indication from the greater GCC > community as to this plan. Does this document seem like a good idea? > (Previously, we've left this kind of document to the user community. > Often the passage of time has not been pa

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

Benjamin Kosnik writes: > > > Attached is a rough cut of a detailed portability document > > I also put this up here temporarily: > > http://people.redhat.com/~bkoz/porting_to_gcc43.html The "Java issues" part isn't quite right. It turns out that the java 1.2 problem with the new gcj is

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 06:41:37PM -0600, Benjamin Kosnik proposes: > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html > > would be joined by > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/porting_to.html > > This would imply that the porting document would be checked in to > wwwdocs and available to all the usual GCC c

Re: [RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

> Attached is a rough cut of a detailed portability document I also put this up here temporarily: http://people.redhat.com/~bkoz/porting_to_gcc43.html -benjamin

[RFC] porting to gcc-4.3 docs

Hello all. As many know, various linux distributors are working on re-compiling their distros with GCC mainline in the hopes of helping GCC 4.3 stabilize. As part of this effort, many bugs have been filed in GCC bugzilla, and many portability issues have been identified. Attached is a rough cut