On 07 March 2007 17:44, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, I surely understand that and I find it nice. Still, I was
> questioning Paul why he said: "I consider rejecting mixed
> code/declarations to be a feature"
> I surely don't know FSF's goals but again I understand gcc code not
> containing //,
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As explained: because it makes it impossible for users running old systems
with pre-C99 compilers to build gcc and thereby excludes them from the world
of free software, which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.
Well, I surely und
On 07 March 2007 16:16, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow
On 3/7/07, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to ge
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
Maybe, but I consider rejecti
On 07 March 2007 15:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Moreover, for some reason when using malloc, a lot of poisonous malloc
> warning come up which are solved by using xmalloc instead, which is
> another thing I cannot figure out. What is better in xmalloc than
> malloc?
Take a look, the source for
On 07 March 2007 15:05, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
>>> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a seco
On 3/7/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> > bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a s
On 3/7/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full
On 07 March 2007 14:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Is it time to offer "second-strap" level of compilation? Ie allow C99 to
> bootstrap the creation of a basic GCC compiler, then allow a second compile
> using the basic GCC compiler to get the full compiler.
>
> Nick
Effectively that's what
TECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Adding a new gcc dir
> Sent: 06 Mar '07 16:32
>
> > Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
> > C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
> > c99 constructs?
> >
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
No, I advise that when adding a pass, regardless of whether the code can fit
in a single file or is large enough to need to use several separate files,
it's consistent to put all the files that implement the pass in the main 'gcc'
source directory
On 06 March 2007 20:12, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>>>
>>> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>
> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
> I wonder where it has gone to.
>
>
> Any suggestions ??
On 06 March 2007 18:22, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-ar: symbol-tables.o: No such file or directory
>
> And in fact there is no symbol-tables.o but I saw it being compiled so
> I wonder where it has gone to.
>
>
> Any suggestions ??
1. Always pipe the build output to a file so
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into h
On 3/6/07, Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
> myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
> It's using these flags by default:
> -W -Wall -Wwrite
> Which means using C90, which means no mixed declarations and code, no
> C++ comments, etc. Is there any way to compile at least, my files with
> c99 constructs?
> Or all gcc code should be built like this??
This is a feature. gcc can be bootstrapped using an arbitrary c90 compiler.
The warning
On 06 March 2007 16:07, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Well, added a couple of lines to gcc/Makefile.in referring to files in
> myproj. Still, although it is partly working one thing is annoying me.
> It's using these flags by default:
> -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
On 3/6/07, Paulo J. Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into h
Hi all,
I've just added a new gcc subdir : head/gcc/myproj with structures and
utilities for my ipa pass which lives in head/gcc. Now I have to tell
gcc to compile the files inside myproj. Is there a standard way to do
this? I've looked into head/gcc/Makefile.in but it seem quite
cluttered and I
21 matches
Mail list logo
