Joe Buck wrote:
> > Will 4.1.2 be worse than 4.1.1 for code that has these kinds of failings?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:53:10PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Yes
> > If so, then it might be better to push the fix that allows overrides that
> > throw back to 4.2, and circulate warnings to af
Joe Buck wrote:
>> If KDE doesn't use throw(), or visibility attributees, that's a
>> failing in KDE, not the compiler.
>
> Will 4.1.2 be worse than 4.1.1 for code that has these kinds of failings?
Yes. On workstation and server systems, most of the issue will be
somewhat larger binaries. On e
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:16:43PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
>>> actually use throw() everywhere, or visibility attributes? But,
>>> presumably, most
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:30:41PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:16:43PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
> > > actually use throw() everywhere, or
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 01:16:43PM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
> > actually use throw() everywhere, or visibility attributes? But,
> > presumably, most people don't replace the im
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But, aren't big C++ shared libraries rather different? Does KDE
> actually use throw() everywhere, or visibility attributes? But,
> presumably, most people don't replace the implementation of
> ScrollBar::ScrollUp or whatever. I'd be happy to know I'm
Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:06:11AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Does it seem overly aggressive to you to assume "f" cannot throw
>> in "g", given:
>>
>> void f() {}
>> void g() { f(); }
>>
>> where this code is in a shared library?
>
> Yes.
>
> If F is part of the
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 10:06:11AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Does it seem overly aggressive to you to assume "f" cannot throw
> in "g", given:
>
> void f() {}
> void g() { f(); }
>
> where this code is in a shared library?
Yes.
If F is part of the exported (and overridable) interface of
Ian, Richard, Diego --
I've explicitly forwarded this to you, as folks who have done work on
middle-end optimization and have seen lots of real-world code.
(That's not to say that I'm not looking for comments from anyone and
everyone -- but I'm specifically trying to get at least some feedback,
s
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
> [Java folks: see below for check-in window for daylight savings time
> patches.]
>
> Therefore, if the Java folks have daylight savings time patches that
> they would like to check in, please do so before Monday evening,
> California time.
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Therefore, if the Java folks have daylight savings time patches that
>> they would like to check in, please do so before Monday evening,
>> California time. If these work out, we'll leave them in for 4.1.2;
>> otherwise, we'll back them out. We will not do an RC4 simply to
> Therefore, if the Java folks have daylight savings time patches that
> they would like to check in, please do so before Monday evening,
> California time. If these work out, we'll leave them in for 4.1.2;
> otherwise, we'll back them out. We will not do an RC4 simply to correct
> problems in th
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
[Java folks: see below for check-in window for daylight savings time
patches.]
> Test results for sparc/sparc64 on solaris2.10 are here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00422.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00423.html
Thanks!
In g
> 1. g++.dg/debug/debug9.C fails as described in PR 30649. I believe this
> is simply a mistaken testcase checkin. If confirmed by someone, no big
> deal I can remove it.
Looks bogus to me like the 2 other testcases.
> 3. gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c is a new failure at -O2 and at more
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
>
> and its mirrors.
>
> The changes relative to RC1 are fixes for:
>
> 1. PR 29683: a wrong-code issue on Darwin
> 2. PR 3037
On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 13:36 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
>
> and its mirrors.
On a recent ubuntu x86_64 system, with c,ada,c++,fortran,java,objc:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 01:36:00PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
OK, I untarred it, built, and tested.
I have test results for all languages except Ada, for RHEL 3
(ancient, but with binutils-
GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208
and its mirrors.
The changes relative to RC1 are fixes for:
1. PR 29683: a wrong-code issue on Darwin
2. PR 30370: a build problem for certain PowerPC configurations
3. PR 29487: a build problem for HP-UX
18 matches
Mail list logo
