Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
${gcc_dir}/configure --prefix="${prefix_dir}" \
--exec-prefix="${eprefix_dir}" \
Thanks everyone!
I will file a feature request for this via bugzilla.
Regards,
Sajish.
- Original Message
From: Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Meissner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sajish V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Sent: Tues
Hello,
I've read that allocating objects on the stack is faster than on the
heap. What about deletion? Is deleting an object from the heap a lot
less efficient? Are the performance differences so negligible that they
won't matter?
Are there any papers or articles that address the stack and he
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I've read that allocating objects on the stack is faster than on the
> heap. What about deletion? Is deleting an object from the heap a lot
> less efficient? Are the performance differences so negligible that they
> won't matter?
>
> Are there any papers or articles
I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
-W options were applied to the trunk. The following are for an
x86_64-pc-linux to x86_64-pc-mingw32 cross compiler:
In file included from ../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2.c:41:
../../../gcc/libgcc/../gcc/unwind-dw2-fde.h: I
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
target. Also these are only warnings--this code is not compiled with
-Werror.
I
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>
> It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings for every possible
> target. Also
good morning Nick:
You try to isolate whether this really is a linker bug. (It
certainly sounds like it is). If you can reproduce the problem
just using assembler source files then please file a bug report
with the binutils project (at http://sourceware.org/bugzilla).
Including a *small* test
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
>> > -W options were applied to the trunk.
>>
>> It's pretty hard to clean up all
From: "Ian Lance Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaveh mentioned these in his original e-mail, explained why he found
it difficult to fix, and added this to the Makefile so that it
wouldn't break the build.
# bitmap.c contains -Wc++compat warnings.
bitmap.o-warn = -Wno-error
This too should be fix
From: "NightStrike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/8/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
NightStrike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was under the impression that these would be cleaned up before the
> -W options were applied to the trunk.
It's pretty hard to clean up all the warnings f
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
>>
>> This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
>> appropriate configure option.
>
>
> The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
>
> ${gcc_dir}/config
"Kaveh Ghazi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right, here's the original link where I mention it:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-06/msg01658.html
>
> This involves a cast from one type to another through a void*. I haven't
> been able to convince myself that this is completely safe. If s
15 matches
Mail list logo
