> Nicholas Nethercote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Commit logs are basically invisible;
>
> That's just a (fixable) problem in your coding setup. In other
> projects it is very common to use tools like cvs annotate / cvsps /
> git blame / git log / etc. to find the reasons for why code is th
E-Mail реклама
Скоростные МегаСуперКачество!
648 6761
> I didn't say you cannot or should not use these tools. But a good comment
> on a piece of code sure beats a good commit message, which must be looked at
> separately, and can be fragmented over multiple commits, etc.
I don't see one as "beating" the other because they have very different
purp
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 11:34:47PM +0100, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> Index: configure.ac
> ===
> --- configure.ac (revision 130442)
> +++ configure.ac (working copy)
> AC_SUBST(CONFIGURE_GDB_TK)
> AC_SUBST(GDB_TK)
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] раскрутка
Скоростные Мегакачественные
6Ч86З-8Ч
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Diego> I'm not sure people will want to drop ChangeLogs anytime soon. I
Diego> don't find them all that useful, but I *have* used them extensively
Diego> when doing archeology. It gives you the initial thread to pull when
Diego> finding
Gentle People:
I am writing to you today to document several serious build
bugs in GCC releases gcc-3.4.6, gcc-4.0.4, and gcc-4.1.2.
To be honest I have wasted several days of work on reflector
interaction and attempts to work around these issues all to no
avail! I have been unable to build
Hi,
Since at least 3.4, the GCC manual says:
Use the `section' attribute with an _initialized_ definition of a
_global_ variable, as shown in the example. GCC issues a warning
and otherwise ignores the `section' attribute in uninitialized
variable declarations.
but this does
On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 08:29 -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > Sorry, but again, this is not a good enough justification to me.
> > We do a lot of things different than "The GNU Project".
> > So do plenty of parts of the "official GNU project".
> > They use different coding standards, bug tracking s
Hi,
I have a problem while porting gcc to a custom processor. Here is a
simplified example:
struct big_struct {
...
int a;
char b;
char c;
...
} testme;
char char_tmp;
int int_tmp;
int testit(void)
{
char_tmp = testme.c;
int_tmp = testme.a
"Paul Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For the second line, gcc will reuse the same address register, and
> generate an indirect 32-bit load with an offset of -5 to fetch the
> value of 'testme.a'. But on our custom processor, the offsets of
> indirect load instructions are scaled by the s
11 matches
Mail list logo
