Hartelijk dank voor uw bericht.
Zodra wij in de gelegenheid zijn zullen wij uw bericht zonodig beantwoorden.
P.S.
Wij zijn voor publiek gesloten van 10-07-2005 t/m 20-08-2005!
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jan en Tinah Visser
"In het donker gezien"
T 0251-274788
E [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website www.wa
On 8/18/05, Rikard S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where do I start?
Read the top of http://gcc.gnu.org/readings.html there's Hans-Peter
Nilsson's "Porting GCC for Dunces"
A good document to start with.
> I guess there is only some few files that I need to write or edit,
> using files for similar
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:33:12PM -0700, James E Wilson wrote:
> F. Heitkamp wrote:
> > a particular cpu. Looking at the specs file for the host compiler the
> > default is -mppc. When I gave the "--with-cpu=7400" shouldn't that have
> > made the default -m7400?. What about xgcc, how can I mak
Rikard S wrote:
Where do I start?
I guess there is only some few files that I need to write or edit,
using files for similar MCU's as "templates".
If I would like to implement new AVR targets, which files are involved?
Who knows, maby I can contribute :-)
/Best Regards Rikard Strömmer
Ple
Original Message
>From: Ian Lance Taylor
>Sent: 18 August 2005 02:20
> "Giovanni Bajo" writes:
>
>> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> Can't we just use some inline function written in plain C to check the
>>> arguments and execute it at compile time using constant folding etc.?
>>
>>
>> Do
* Giovanni Bajo:
> Do we have a sane way to (partially) execute optimizers at -O0
> without screwing up with the pass manager too much?
Do we have to provide user-defined format string warnings at -O0?
* Dave Korn:
> PMFBI, but how is all this going to work on a cross compiler?
Constant folding works in a cross-compiler, too. 8-)
Original Message
>From: Florian Weimer
>Sent: 18 August 2005 13:00
> * Dave Korn:
>
>> PMFBI, but how is all this going to work on a cross compiler?
>
> Constant folding works in a cross-compiler, too. 8-)
I was referring to this bit:
> Remember that it's not
> enough simply to e
> > Yeah, BFD can only do that because it forces the %A %B specifiers be
> > in the front.
>
> No, it's worse than that. %A and %B can appear anywhere in the format
> string, but consume their args first. eg.
>
> _bfd_default_error_handler ("section %d is called %A", sec, 1);
>
> Alan
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 08:46:04AM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> I don't know how wedded to this style the bfd folks are
Not at all. In fact I don't like it, even though I wrote the code.
It would be great if _bfd_default_error_handler used the natural arg
positions for %A and %B. I couldn't t
> > I don't know how wedded to this style the bfd folks are
>
> Not at all. In fact I don't like it, even though I wrote the code.
> It would be great if _bfd_default_error_handler used the natural arg
> positions for %A and %B. I couldn't think of a way to do that without
> incorporating
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Do we have a sane way to (partially) execute optimizers at -O0
> > without screwing up with the pass manager too much?
>
> Do we have to provide user-defined format string warnings at -O0?
Yes, we do.
(But, although I don't like this approach, I th
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Ian Lance Taylor to the role of "middle-end" maintainer,
joining Roger Sayle. The role covers all files that may get included
into libbackend.a.
Please join me in congratulating Ian on his new role. Ian,
pleas
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
> appointed Ian Lance Taylor to the role of "middle-end" maintainer,
> joining Roger Sayle. The role covers all files that may get included
> into libbackend.a.
My thanks to David and
On Aug 18, 2005, at 5:08 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
I was referring to this bit:
Remember that it's not enough simply to execute the optimizers.
You have to build a symbol table and an environment for the code
to execute in.
IIUIC, that would be a requirement for the optimisers to be able to
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has
appointed Ian Lance Taylor to the role of "middle-end" maintainer,
joining Roger Sayle. The role covers all files that may get included
into libbackend.a.
Please join me in congratulating Ian on his new role. Ian,
pleas
Mike Stump wrote:
Imagine the following program:
{
int i = 234234;
printf ("%d", i);
}
imagine the folder collapsing this to puts ("234234");
Now imagine that the output of the original program depends on the
locale that's in force at execution time, which defines numberic output
to
On 2005-08-18 21:53:47 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Mike Stump wrote:
[...]
> > printf ("%d", i);
[...]
> Now imagine that the output of the original program depends on the
> locale that's in force at execution time, which defines numberic
> output to be in arabic numerals (real ones, not the sor
On Aug 18, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
Now imagine that the output of the original program depends on the
locale that's in force at execution time
Now imagine that you can't use locale specific functions for these
things.
Snapshot gcc-4.0-20050818 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050818/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.0 CVS branch
with the following options: -rgcc-ss-4_0-20050818
You'll
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:52:36PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2005-08-18 21:53:47 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Mike Stump wrote:
> [...]
> > > printf ("%d", i);
> [...]
> > Now imagine that the output of the original program depends on the
> > locale that's in force at execution time, w
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 10:35:22AM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > > I don't know how wedded to this style the bfd folks are
> >
> > Not at all. In fact I don't like it, even though I wrote the code.
> > It would be great if _bfd_default_error_handler used the natural arg
> > positions for
Joe Buck wrote:
> The digits we use come from the Arabs, and look much the same in Arabic.
> Check an Arabic-language site, for example http://www.aljazeera.net/ .
In English, we call them "Arabic Numerals", but that is a bit of a
misnomer. Once upon a time, a long time ago, some Arabs used digit
James E Wilson wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
The digits we use come from the Arabs, and look much the same in Arabic.
Check an Arabic-language site, for example http://www.aljazeera.net/ .
In English, we call them "Arabic Numerals", but that is a bit of a
misnomer. Once upon a time, a long time ago
Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a great pity that vfprintf doesn't return its va_list arg. If it
> did, you could chop the format string into pieces and have vprintf
> process the normal parts, consuming args as it goes.
You can do relatively limited parsing and still identify how
Hi, everyone,
I have looked through C99 standard, in 6.4.1 Keywords, "_Imaginary" is
mentioned as a keyword in this standard. However, it seems that GCC can not
recognize it, report error: '_Imaginary' undeclared. I also search it in
GCC info, there is no spot mentioned that. Maybe GCC doe
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:04 PM, Yao qi wrote:
Hi, everyone,
I have looked through C99 standard, in 6.4.1 Keywords, "_Imaginary"
is mentioned as a keyword in this standard. However, it seems that
GCC can not recognize it, report error: '_Imaginary' undeclared. I
also search it in GCC info,
From: Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Yao qi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Keyword _Imaginary in C99 standard and in GCC
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:07:49 -0400
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:04 PM, Yao qi wrote:
Hi, everyone,
I have looked through C99 standard, in 6.4.1
On Aug 18, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Yao qi wrote:
Thanks. That means GCC has not fully support C99, just partialy, am I
right? I want to continue a question further, could you tell me where
can I find a document about GCC's coverage in C99, if any?
http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
Note there is
Hi,Pinski,
Got it! Thanks.
Best Regards
Yao Qi
Bejing Institute of Technology
From: Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Yao qi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Keyword _Imaginary in C99 standard and in GCC
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:30:06 -0400
On
Well, I see this in the gcc error message. Can someone here kindly
point to me which part of the Standard specified this behaviour? I
thought it should be in 5.3.4, but was not able to find the words
there.
By the way, anyone knows the rationale of this behaviour?
Thanks in advance.
Best regar
31 matches
Mail list logo
