On Wednesday 29 April 2009 12:47:04 Joern Rennecke wrote:
Something which I miss in C++ is a way to declare that a function uses
an integral type to pass an enum value (in arguments or return value),
and then at function definition time only check that the integral type
is sufficently large to ho
On Wednesday 29 April 2009 12:47:04 Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Something which I miss in C++ is a way to declare that a function uses
> an integral type to pass an enum value (in arguments or return value),
> and then at function definition time only check that the integral type
> is sufficently large
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
I think the cleanups involved in using the target vector / class more, and
other cleanups involved in the natural approach to multi-target GCC of
which the target vector is a part, are more useful than the end result
(for which compiling large parts of the compiler mul
Quoting Ian Lance Taylor :
I'm not sure why you are singling me out.
You seemed to be actively working on the branch, and the c++ enum type
checks provide a motivation to make changes. Also, this issue should
be considered in general when people change their coding habits in order
for the cod
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
> If you are building a non-C front end without bootstrapping you need at
> least 2.95:
>
> To build all languages in a cross-compiler or other configuration where
> 3-stage bootstrap is not perfor
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> (I'm not personally convinced that a multi-targeted gcc is particularly
> useful, though I don't object if there is a general desire to support
> it.)
I think the cleanups involved in using the target vector / class more, and
other cleanups involved
Joern Rennecke writes:
> I've found some issues with gcc-in-cxx both specific to these
> targets, and specific to (parts of) compiler passes that are
> only compiled for a subset of all tagets, which include one or
> more of the above mentioned three.
I'd be happy to see and approve your patches
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > The question is not just one for bootstrapping a native compiler but also
> > one of what compiler can be used to build a cross compiler (such as that
> > with multiple targets), which is not bootstrapped in the usual GCC sense.
> > There we pre
On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 13:21 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
>
> > Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
> >
> > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> > >
> > > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
> > >
> > > I believe we ag
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
>
> > On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> >
> > > What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
> >
> > I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
> > intersection
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including
making sure
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> What are your thoughts on using gcc extensions for gcc-in-cxx ?
I believe we agreed in a previous discussion to aim for building with the
intersection of C++98/C++03 and C++ as supported by GCC 3.4 (including
making sure at an appropriate point that
In order to be able to use namespaces in my endeavour to
support gcc with multiple targets, I've first done a merge
from the gcc-in-cxx branch.
For my initial implementation, I choose as configuration
--target=m32r-elf --with-extra-target-list='sh64-elf arc-elf32' .
I've found some issues with g
13 matches
Mail list logo
