My GNU Tools version information is:
binutils-2.16.92
gcc-4.1-20060407
newlib-1.14.0
My test program is :
class A
{
public:
private:
char string[SIZEOFOBJ];
};
void test(void)
{
A obj;
try
{
throw obj;
}
catch ( A &e )
{
David,
This list is for the development of GCC. It is more likely that you
obtain an answer to your problem if you ask in [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good luck,
Manuel.
On 10/01/07, 王 刚伟 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My GNU Tools version information is:
binutils-2.16.92
gcc-4.1-20060407
newlib-1.14.0
My
On 10 Jan 2007 05:47:19 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| 1. Create a default section, at the top, and put all options enabled
| by default there.
|
| 2. Try to group options so that they are closer to other connected
| nodes in the g
trunk configured on i486 (on x86_64 hardware) with
--enable-targets=all i486-linux-gnu
fails to configure the first 64bit library (libiberty), not finding
the correct libgcc.
/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc-snapshot-20070110/build/i486-linux-gnu/64/libiberty$
/scratch/packages/gcc/snap/gcc
Hello,
[I apologize for posting this question here, but I've tried to ask at
gcc-help, got no response, and don't actually know where else to ask]
Below are two example functions foo() and boo(), that I think both are
valid from the POV of strict aliasing rules. GCC 4.2 either warns about
both (w
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 12:07:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> trunk configured on i486 (on x86_64 hardware) with
>
> --enable-targets=all i486-linux-gnu
>
> fails to configure the first 64bit library (libiberty), not finding
> the correct libgcc.
libgcc uses the same config-ml.in to enable
With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
--dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
performance in gcc. This change will build libstdc++.so with
-Bsymbolic-functions and --dynamic-list-cpp-new. I can expand it
to other libraries.
H.J.
--
--- gcc/libstdc++-v3/acinclude.m4.
Apologises for the slightly off-topic message.
One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++ messageboards
is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())" do not declare
which order f() and g() will be executed in.
How hard would it be to fix the order of execution in gcc/g++? Co
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 10 Jan 2007 05:47:19 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
"default" section?
No. Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disa
Sergei Organov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Below are two example functions foo() and boo(), that I think both are
> valid from the POV of strict aliasing rules. GCC 4.2 either warns about
> both (with -Wstrict-aliasing=2) or doesn't warn about any (with
> -Wstrict-aliasing), and generates the as
"H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
> --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
> performance in gcc. This change will build libstdc++.so with
> -Bsymbolic-functions and --dynamic-list-cpp-new. I can expand it
> to other libra
Chris Jefferson writes:
> One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++
> messageboards is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())"
> do not declare which order f() and g() will be executed in.
>
> How hard would it be to fix the order of execution in gcc/g++?
> Could so
"Chris Jefferson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++ messageboards
> is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())" do not declare
> which order f() and g() will be executed in.
>
> How hard would it be to fix the order of execution in gcc
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 07:19:17AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "H. J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
> > --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
> > performance in gcc. This change will build libstdc++.so with
> > -Bs
> "Chris" == Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Chris> For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time
Chris> reading and getting confused by the warnings documentation.
Chris> 3. Get rid of the -Wno-xxx option listings, since it is not always
Chris> the case that -Wxxx
> "H.J." == H J Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
H.J.> With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
H.J.> --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
H.J.> performance in gcc. This change will build libstdc++.so with
H.J.> -Bsymbolic-functions and --dynamic-list-cpp-new. I ca
It is possible that somebody else will disagree with me.
FWIW, our currently aliasing set implementation agrees with you on
both counts :)
Andrew Haley wrote:
Chris Jefferson writes:
> One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++
> messageboards is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())"
> do not declare which order f() and g() will be executed in.
>
> How hard would it be to fix the order of execution i
This is "man dlopen" ;
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
void *handle;
double (*cosine)(double);
char *error;
handle = dlopen ("libm.so", RTLD_LAZY);
if (!handle) {
fprintf (stderr, "%s\n", dlerror());
exit(1);
}
dlerror();/* C
Roberto COSTA writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Chris Jefferson writes:
> >
> > > One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++
> > > messageboards is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())"
> > > do not declare which order f() and g() will be executed in.
> > >
>
Andrew Haley wrote:
Roberto COSTA writes:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > Chris Jefferson writes:
> >
> > > One thing which comes up regularly in various C and C++
> > > messageboards is that statements like "f() + g()" and "a(f(), g())"
> > > do not declare which order f() and g() will be
Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---
> *(void **) (&cosine) = dlsym(handle, "cos");
> ---
> That is a strict-aliasing error, is it?
Yes, and a see
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
| >
|
| No.
Why?
| Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disabled,
| there is no need to mention them.
I don't understand. Pl
Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Chris" == Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Chris> For one reason or another, I have spent a fair amount of time
| Chris> reading and getting confused by the warnings documentation.
|
| Chris> 3. Get rid of the -Wno-xxx option listings
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
My guess is that there is a misunderstanding here.
| Warnings that are not active by default are obviously disabled,
Chris Pickett wrote:
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to the
| > "default" section?
If you meant something else in addition, can you give an example?
I'm not subscribed to the list and so I missed Tom's message:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/g
Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > "Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| > | > I assume the -Wno-xxx that are set by default would be moved to
| > the
| > | > "default" section?
|
| My guess is that there is a misunderstanding here.
mo
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 06:26:09AM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "H.J." == H J Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> H.J.> With the new linker switches, -Bsymbolic-functions and
> H.J.> --dynamic-list-cpp-new, we can improve shared library
> H.J.> performance in gcc. This change will build libstdc
Both AMD and Intel like to have BID as a configure time option
for DFP. Intel is planning to contribute a complete BID runtime
library, which can be used by executables generate by gcc.
As the first step, we'd like to contribute a BID<->DPD library so that
BID can be used with libdecnumber by exec
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:40:46AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Both AMD and Intel like to have BID as a configure time option
> for DFP. Intel is planning to contribute a complete BID runtime
> library, which can be used by executables generate by gcc.
>
> As the first step, we'd like to contribute a
On 10/01/07, Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I can tell, Manuel's original response was saying that one
should not list -Wno-strict-prototypes in the default section on the
basis of -Wstrict-prototypes not being default.
Correct.
I tried to build java yesterday:
../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/
GnuCrypto.java: In class 'gnu.j
avax.crypto.jce.GnuCrypto$1':
../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/
GnuCrypto.java: In method 'gnu.
javax.crypto.jce.GnuCrypto$1.run()':
../..
I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
in a different way.
Richard
--- Begin Message ---
[off-list]
Posting sixty patches
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
5. Fix what I have labelled as errors.
That we definitely should do. I believe some things have been changed
in our current development tree (to become GCC 4.3) already. It would
be great could you have a look and perhaps produce a patch for one or
more of these; is thi
Chris Pickett wrote:
I have a question: does -Wextra now imply -Wconversion since
-Wconversion was split into -Wconversion and -Wtraditional-conversion?
I mistakenly thought it was under -Wextra. So the question should be,
does -Wtraditional now imply -Wtraditional-conversion since -Wconversi
> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
> whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
> in a different way.
I guess one should rather thank you for taking time to spl
On 10/01/07, Chris Pickett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Pickett wrote:
> I have a question: does -Wextra now imply -Wconversion since
> -Wconversion was split into -Wconversion and -Wtraditional-conversion?
I mistakenly thought it was under -Wextra. So the question should be,
does -Wtraditi
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to whether I'd
screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches in a
different way.
I don't see a trivial way that is strictly better. The problem is
that some folks don't want t
> "Mike" == Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike> I tried to build java yesterday:
Mike> ../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/
Mike> GnuCrypto.java: In class 'gnu.j
Mike> avax.crypto.jce.GnuCrypto$1':
Mike> ../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:40:46AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Both AMD and Intel like to have BID as a configure time option
> for DFP. Intel is planning to contribute a complete BID runtime
> library, which can be used by executables generate by gcc.
>
> As the first step, we'd like to contribute a
Richard Sandiford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
> whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
> in a different way.
IMHO this i
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:10:58PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 11:40:46AM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > Both AMD and Intel like to have BID as a configure time option
> > for DFP. Intel is planning to contribute a complete BID runtime
> > library, which can be used by executa
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 21:13 +, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
> whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
> in a different way.
Snapshot gcc-4.2-20070110 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.2-20070110/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.2 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
> I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
> the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
> whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
> in a different way.
The only problem I personally have is that you apparently
I have an issue (I hesitate to say a problem) related to register
saving and debugging on the linux/x86 platform using gdb 4.1.0.
If the following code is compiled with 'gcc -g -O0 -o test test.c',
the address of argc is passed into func() in the ecx register. Since
ecx is not preserved aft
On 10 Jan 2007 18:48:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| It seems to me that the only reason for Winit-self to exists is that
| people try to silence the -Wuninitialized warnings using the init-self
| hack and then other people have to work-around that hack.
I don't believe
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:32:48PM -0700, Greg Watson wrote:
> If the following code is compiled with 'gcc -g -O0 -o test test.c',
> the address of argc is passed into func() in the ecx register. Since
> ecx is not preserved after the call to printf(), the address of argc
> is corrupted on re
On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:32:48PM -0700, Greg Watson wrote:
If the following code is compiled with 'gcc -g -O0 -o test test.c',
the address of argc is passed into func() in the ecx register. Since
ecx is not preserved after the call to prin
> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andreas> The only problem I see is that one can easily lose track of
Andreas> which patches were already reviewed. Perhaps it would have
Andreas> been better to send them in smaller batches.
The patch tracker would help with that.
I
Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas> The only problem I see is that one can easily lose track of
> Andreas> which patches were already reviewed. Perhaps it would have
> Andreas> been better to send them in smaller batches.
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:56:48PM -0700, To
Richard Sandiford wrote:
I know Andrew replied privately, but I hope he doesn't mind me raising
the issue on-list. I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to
whether I'd screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches
in a different way.
I wish everyone did things this thorou
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 10 Jan 2007 18:48:58 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | It seems to me that the only reason for Winit-self to exists is that
| > | people try to silence the -Wuninitialized warnings using the init-self
| > | hack
On 11 Jan 2007 02:08:48 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the
archive, you shou
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:48AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
> subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
> more carefully the threads relating to this issue. If you dig the
> archive, you should
The goal is to fix PR7651 and convert Wextra into a super-option, that
is an -W* option that just enables other options but it doesn't emit
warnings by itself (other super-options are Wall and Wunused).
This is a summary of the current status of Wextra for mainline to the
best of my knowledge. I
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Greg Watson wrote:
> That would be nice. Although this seems like a trivial issue, it can
> potentially effect debugging all MPI programs since they always start
> with 'MPI_Init(&argc, &argv)'.
See my reply to the bug. This is specific to i686 32-bit
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:08:48AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
| > subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
| > more carefully the threads relating to this
"Manuel López-Ibáñez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 11 Jan 2007 02:08:48 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis
| <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > I'm well aware of the history of "-Winit-self". The issue is more
| > subtile that you would like to make it appear. You would have to study
| > more carefully the
Hello,
Is there a way I can make GCC read a C or C++ code from the standard input
instead of from a file?
In my application software, I am generating some C code on the fly, writing it
to a file, then using GCC to compile it. Instead of that, I want to invoke GCC
through a pipe, and write th
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 04:09:16AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The subtlety I'm refering to is not that "void* p = &p" is not well-defined,
> but rather the fact that when we see
>
> T t = some-expression-involving-t;
>
> we would like to warn for cases where there is a high probability
61 matches
Mail list logo
