Hello to all,
I have been working on inserting a new string argument in gcc, which
accepts a string from command line.
It would be like gcc ... -fmyparameter=stringtoread ...
In common.opt, I have had to insert a new parameter, and it has been
something like
myparameter=
Common RejectNegati
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > If you want to be really sure no arguments disappear (necessary for
> > instance for meaningful use of systemtap) you also need to inhibit
> > some transformations,
>
> I'm not aware of any situations in which we must force an argument not
>
On 09/11/2007, Juan Luis Liarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> myparameter=
> Common RejectNegative Joined
>
> It works, but I have been thinking on it, and maybe this way to insert
> arguments is a little bit messy. For example, the keyword RejectNegative
> is not very intuitive, a
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 09/11/2007, Juan Luis Liarte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Strangely, I am subscribed to the gcc@gcc.gnu.org and did not get by
email Juan Luis' first message but I read it on the web
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00266.html)
Hello to all,
myparameter=
C
On 09/11/2007, Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >
> > RejectNegative is not intuitive? I really would like to hear your
> > suggestion. Honestly, not sarcasm here.
>
> I agree with the original poster Juan Luis Liarte, RejectNegative, as a
> marker for
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Anyhow, in practical terms, debating this here probably will have zero
> impact on the outcome. The ball is in RMS' court, and SC members
> (including myself) have made many of the arguments that have been made
> in this thread. If people want to influence the FSF, the best
[Can we pick just gcc@ or just gcc-patches@ please?]
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 05:11:24PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> Debugging would be just as easy and natural if -O0 only made sure that
> values of variables are written out to memory at positions where the
> user can set a breakpoint; the code doesn
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Careful. Eliminating reads from memory messes up debugger
modification of variables, unless you can explain to the debugger that
the variable is currently in both locations - this has been discussed
but AFAIK there is no representation for it yet. Changing the memory
l
Hello,
As part of our Ada front-end maintainership, we (AdaCore) would like
to introduce a subdirectory of 'ada' where we would relocate all the
files implementing the Ada-front-end/GCC interface (the "gigi" sources
for the internal GNAT/GCC tree interfacing, plus the build
infrastructure bits: Ma
Just to complete this discussion, the syntax of the *.opt files is
(almost exactly) mapped by the gen-*.awk scripts into flags that are
defined in the file gcc/opts.h. This file contains some comments about
these flags:
#define CL_PARAMS (1 << 18) /* Fake entry. Used to
display --pa
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Olivier Hainque wrote:
> As part of our Ada front-end maintainership, we (AdaCore) would like
> to introduce a subdirectory of 'ada' where we would relocate all the
> files implementing the Ada-front-end/GCC interface (the "gigi" sources
> for the internal GNAT/GCC tree interfa
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 09:52:27PM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > This doesnt happen because while inserting the caller save insn, its
> > live_throughout is simply set to the live_throughout of the call insn
> > + the registers marked with REG_DEAD notes in the call insn.
>
> Ouch. Relying on R
Hi,
Greatings everyone.
I new on this mailnig list and I would like to help. I'm a french Phd
student in computer science. I am familiar with grammar, compiler and
language theory and I have some programming skills and some
experience with the libc and GNU standard.
If it is possible, I w
skaller wrote:
BTW: what happens on ia64 which has two? stacks?
You have to search both stacks for GC roots. Only one stack is visible
to normal user code, the regular program stack, and
__builtin_frame_address(0) will point there.
For the other stack, the backing store, you need some IA-6
Hi.
My builds have been failing since about last night on my i386-pc-solaris2.10
system. I was able to build successfully yesterday - the compiler configuration
info is below:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.10
Configured with: /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc.git/configure
--en
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20071109 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20071109/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Art Haas wrote:
Hi.
My builds have been failing since about last night on my i386-pc-solaris2.10
system. I was able to build successfully yesterday - the compiler configuration
info is below:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: i386-pc-solaris2.10
Configured with: /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc.g
I've submitted this snapshot to the Translation Project so translators can
update translated messages in advance of the release (if the TP processes
the snapshot, which didn't happen with two submitted in advance of the
4.2.0 release). I suggest we avoid bulk changes to existing messages now
u
18 matches
Mail list logo
