Re: The Linux binutils 2.18.50.0.9 is released

2008-08-25 Thread René Rebe
Hi, H.J. Lu wrote: This is the beta release of binutils 2.18.50.0.9 for Linux, which is based on binutils 2008 0822 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various changes. It is purely for Linux. ... 1. binutils-2.18.50.0.9.tar.bz2. Source code. 2. binutils-2.18.50.0.8-2.18.50.0.9.diff.bz2. Patch ag

Arquivo - REDE INDUSTRIAL MUNDIAL

2008-08-25 Thread Moderador do grupo redeindustrial
Amigos, Como é do conhecimento de todos , este fórum tem a presença de diversos amigos , profissionais de outros países. Temos aqui conosco argentinos, Bolivianos, Cubanos, Paraguaios, uruguaios, chilenos, portugueses, Espanhois, cubanos, angolanos, americanos, etc. Quero , então lembrar a

Arquivo - REDE INDUSTRIAL MUNDIAL

2008-08-25 Thread Moderador do grupo redeindustrial
Amigos, Como é do conhecimento de todos , este fórum tem a presença de diversos amigos , profissionais de outros países. Temos aqui conosco argentinos, Bolivianos, Cubanos, Paraguaios, uruguaios, chilenos, portugueses, Espanhois, cubanos, angolanos, americanos, etc. Quero , então lembrar a

Re: The Linux binutils 2.18.50.0.9 is released

2008-08-25 Thread H.J. Lu
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:28 AM, René Rebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > H.J. Lu wrote: >> >> This is the beta release of binutils 2.18.50.0.9 for Linux, which is >> based on binutils 2008 0822 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various >> changes. It is purely for Linux. >> > > ... >> >> 1. binu

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Arnaud Charlet
> > Well, clearly, the preprocessor and handling of #include is very > > C/C++ specific, and not used by Ada or Fortran. > > Both Ada and Fortran are linked with libcpp.a. Sure, because as we've said, libcpp is not modular enough. Clearly Ada does not need to link with A C preprocessor at all. >

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
>> Even if you do not use line-map.o, the middle-end does, so you still >> have the duplication. > > Right, this is the only part that is indeed shared and for which Ada requires > libcpp. There are exactly 6 uses of linemap functions in libcpp. They could be replaced with a handful of function

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
2008/8/25 Arnaud Charlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Even if you do not use line-map.o, the middle-end does, so you still >> have the duplication. > > Right, this is the only part that is indeed shared and for which Ada requires > libcpp. My point is that if the rest of the compiler extends diagnostic

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
2008/8/25 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> Even if you do not use line-map.o, the middle-end does, so you still >>> have the duplication. >> >> Right, this is the only part that is indeed shared and for which Ada requires >> libcpp. > > There are exactly 6 uses of linemap functions in libcp

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > 2008/8/25 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Even if you do not use line-map.o, the middle-end does, so you still have the duplication. >>> Right, this is the only part that is indeed shared and for which Ada >>> requires >>> libcpp. >> There are exactly 6 us

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Manuel López-Ibáñez
2008/8/25 Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > As far as I could see, all the dependency stuff is in mkdeps.c; maybe it > could use the line-map infrastructure more. Of course, in that case > moving line-map.c out of libcpp would mean moving mkdeps.c too -- and > not in gcc/, but rather in its o

Re: Better GCC diagnostics

2008-08-25 Thread Tobias Burnus
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: Again, my point is that even if GNAT has all these features already, GNAT should be interested in this since it means moving stuff out of libcpp which will allow to break that dependency. C/C++ could very well implement caret diagnostics and everything else within libcp

Re: REAL(16) ...on x86/x86-64

2008-08-25 Thread Jerry DeLisle
Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 03:15:42PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:16PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: REAL(16) needs to be done in software -- on x86, x86-64 -- as it is not supported in hardware; if you want to use more than REAL(8) on x86, x86-64

Re: REAL(16) ...on x86/x86-64

2008-08-25 Thread Steve Kargl
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 07:09:12PM -0700, Jerry DeLisle wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 03:15:42PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > >>On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:16PM +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: > REAL(16) needs to be done in software -- on x86, x86-64 -- as it is not

Re: c++0x {g++}4.4, =default definition outside template class fails{ to link}.

2008-08-25 Thread Simon Hill
Sorry Paolo, that definitely should have been. === THIS CODE FAILS TO LINK === template class foo { public: foo() =default; // <<--- this works fine. ~foo(); }; template foo::~foo() =default; <<--- ERROR: This doesn't get built by the compiler. // foo::~foo() {}; <<-- replacing with t