skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In gcc/g++ version 4.0 there is no way to turn off the
> unused variable warning enabled by -Wall with a command
> line switch.
How about -Wno-unused-variable?
> I think this is a bug: it should be possible to selectively
> turn on or off all warnings (on t
Sirs,
This web site is turning away Microsoft Internet Explorer 5. Following this
link http://gcc.gnu.org from Mandriva's web site at
http://www.mandriva.com/products/101/powerpack/packages?p=media-main2-gc
c-3.4.1-4mdk.i586.rpm.html results in the Spam Bot page at
http://sourceware.org/badsp
I just tried to bootstrap current cvs gcc trunk under cygwin on a dual
cpu windows box...
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Aug 29 09:44:58 UTC 2005
it barfs like this:
gawk -f ../../gcc/gcc/opt-functions.awk -f ../../gcc/gcc/optc-gen.awk \
-v header_name="config.h system.h coretypes.h tm.h" <
optionlist
I just tried with Internet Explorer 6 (as installed by Windows XP Service
Pack 2) and it worked just fine.
Did you try another browser (e.g. Mozilla or Firefox)?
Hello,
I'm trying to extract global variables from a set of c++ files. I tried
using:
cp_namespace_decls(global_namespace);
But this returns a whole set of variables which I do not want to know
about now (i.e stdout, timezone, _ZTISt10ostrstream e.t.c)
How do I get rid of this excess or what is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew Walrond wrote:
| Can anybody explain what this error might mean?
|
| /tmp/gcc-3-3.heretix/work/gcc/xgcc "" -B/tmp/gcc-3-3.heretix/work/gcc/
- -nostdinc++
- -L/tmp/gcc-3-3.heretix/work/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/src
- -L/tmp/gcc-3-3.h
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 01:00 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In gcc/g++ version 4.0 there is no way to turn off the
> > unused variable warning enabled by -Wall with a command
> > line switch.
>
> How about -Wno-unused-variable?
Hmmm.. that seems to wor
On 08/24/05 13:40, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 01:22:09PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Alternatively, i can just add the "no resort" interface.
(or of course, write the ugly code to keep rechecking which operands got
switched after each call to update_stmt :P)
I'd prefer
Hi,
I am using MMX built-ins and gcc-4.0-20050825 and I am experiencing generation
of uneeded movq (at least I guess so, I am no assembler pro). I don't know
which gcc snapshot introduced this, but a I know that some pre-release gcc 4.0
didn't show this bad behaviour. (It's been some time I played
I have used MinGW on Linux to compile Windows
executables. I don't see why it could not be compiled
on other Unix variants. Try:
http://www.libsdl.org/extras/win32/cross/README.txt
and
http://www.mingw.org
Regards,
Andy
--- Ivan Novick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can you recommend a solution
On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 01:33 -0400, Kevin McBride wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > I've looked at the bug in bugzilla; it's not marked as invalid, though
> > I tend to agree with Andrew and Ian's comments in the log.
>
> I set the bug back to unconfirmed after I noticed that, in my opinion,
> there ca
Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I just tried to bootstrap current cvs gcc trunk under cygwin on a dual
> cpu windows box...
>
> LAST_UPDATED: Mon Aug 29 09:44:58 UTC 2005
>
> it barfs like this:
Looks like we need to change hosthooks-def.h to $(HOSTHOOKS_DEF_H) to
the dependenc
I modified the file: ./libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/sparc/atomicity.h
to use the 32bit equivalent CAS/LD instructions from the arch64 bit in
the arch32.
I then built the code using the -mv8plus option in the (xxx)FLAGS and
all is happy.
However, the code will no longer compile without the v9 32bi
On Aug 27, 2005, at 1:54 AM, Gaurav Gautam, Noida wrote:
I WANT TO KNOW
Please, stop screaming. We can hear you. This is the wrong list for
such questions. Please go try gcc-help.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
> This is nonsense. I have a dozen cross-compilers on this box, all
> installed into /usr. They do not collide as long as you configure with
> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs and
> --program-{prefix,suffix,transform-name} and make slight adjustments
> after in
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 04:29:56PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> In the meantime, I think there may be a bug here, in that memset is
> open coded for the i386 at -O0. That doesn't make sense to me; e.g.,
> it prevents setting a breakpoing on memset.
This, IMO, has nothing to do with i386. If
On Aug 28, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Kevin McBride wrote:
Please take notice that I am appealing my bug (number 23605) to the
steering committee of GCC on the basis that it is a legimate
bug/enhancement in need of a through research.
Ok, so go research it, collect data, and then report your findings
On Aug 29, 2005, at 5:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm trying to extract global variables from a set of c++ files. I
tried
using:
cp_namespace_decls(global_namespace);
But this returns a whole set of variables which I do not want to know
about now (i.e stdout, timezone, _ZTISt10ostrstream e
Hi,
We're supposed to be getting closer to a 4.1 release branch, but just
like in the past so-many releases we have succeeded again in slowing
down GCC, and we've slowed it down a _lot_ compared even to GCC 4.0.
Taking SPECint and CSiBE as examples:
http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/amd64/CINT/sandbox-
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:20:11AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> We're supposed to be getting closer to a 4.1 release branch, but just
> like in the past so-many releases we have succeeded again in slowing
> down GCC, and we've slowed it down a _lot_ compared even to GCC 4.0.
>
> Taking SPECint
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 01:26, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:20:11AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > We're supposed to be getting closer to a 4.1 release branch, but just
> > like in the past so-many releases we have succeeded again in slowing
> > down GCC, and we've slowed it do
We noticed that the simple loop here
extern int a[];
int foo(int w) {
int n = w;
while (n >= 512)
{
a[n] = 42;
n -= 256;
}
}
was being treated as ineligible for the doloop modification. I think
this is
a simple pasto; this code was evidently copied from the previous blo
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 06:48:17PM -0400, Kevin McBride wrote:
> I am hoping that the steering committee will order a through research on
> the bug.
Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that the SC can't order
anyone to do anything. The SC has no employees, doesn't sign paychecks.
GCC is
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> There is no guarantee that your bug will or won't be fixed for a
> certain release, etc, unless *you* start submitting the patches to
> fix it.
Actually, there's no guarantee that even if you submit patches to fix
a bug that it will be fixed in any official release.
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 01:34:22AM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 01:26, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Unless we trade an improved SPECint score for this slowdown, I'd call
> > that an RC bug. But looking at
> >
> > http://www.suse.de/~aj/SPEC/amd64/CINT/sandbox-britten/mean-int_b
On Tuesday 30 August 2005 01:56, Joe Buck wrote:
> OK. Do we have any consistent measurements for SPEC2000 on amd64
> for 4.0.x vs mainline?
Some incomplete data is in
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000.em64t/gcc/individual-build-secs_elapsed.html
Gr.
Steven
On 08/29/05 19:56, Joe Buck wrote:
OK. Do we have any consistent measurements for SPEC2000 on amd64
for 4.0.x vs mainline?
http://people.redhat.com/dnovillo/spec2000/
Hi,
I am very sorry to insist but I would really appreciate if someone
could shed some light on my current problem. I really don't see why my
code is only segfaulting when using gcc4.0.1 (and above).
Description:
I am running a program that is outputing a file. The very same program
when ru
On 29 Aug 2005 09:42:15 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just tried to bootstrap current cvs gcc trunk under cygwin on a dual
> > cpu windows box...
> >
> > LAST_UPDATED: Mon Aug 29 09:44:58 UTC 2005
> >
> > it barfs like this:
>
> Looks lik
This is probably an odd request, but I'd like to see more news
articles on GCC development. Every time a minor revision of the Linux
kernel comes out, there's no scarcity of news articles written about
it. Indeed, any time something interesting happens, someone writes an
article about it, like fo
Hello!
> I am using MMX built-ins and gcc-4.0-20050825 and I am experiencing generation
> of uneeded movq (at least I guess so, I am no assembler pro). I don't know
> which gcc snapshot introduced this, but a I know that some pre-release gcc 4.0
> didn't show this bad behaviour. (It's been some ti
31 matches
Mail list logo
