On Jun 9, 2009, "Arthur Haas" wrote:
> Now that this patch has been commited, the build on i386-pc-solaris2.10
> /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc.git/gcc/gcc.c: In function 'compare_files':
> /export/home/arth/gnu/gcc.git/gcc/gcc.c:6635:2: error: request for
> implicit conversion from 'void *' to 'cadd
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> This is precisely my point. It should be perfectly acceptable that some
>> people be authorized to approve some few patches without understanding
>> the whole of GCC, and even without knowing all of it.
>
> GCC isn't really like that. Changes
Bernd Roesch wrote:
Hi,
I search gcc ML and find this.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-05/msg00413.html
but here i have source with no 64 bit CPU.
is the fix now in and should i test current gcc4.4 ?
The fix is machine-dependent (the message you quoted referred to the
poster's proprietary po
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/buildstat.html
>>
>> I was looking for testsuite results to compare with on Solaris and I saw
>> that nearly every report for GCC 4.3.3 was done by Tom G. Christensen.
>>
>> All GCC 4.3.3 reports on Solaris from one person :
>>
>
> You bette
_
Von:Fehringer Franz
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2009 10:55
An: 'gcc-h...@gnu.org'; 'g...@gnu.org'
Betreff:AIX link error with g++ 4.4.0
Hello all,
I have exactly the same error like described in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-he
Hi,
I try to create and populate a new struct into my the generated code.
Something like:
struct ddm_temaplate{
int loop_interations;
int ddm_thread_num;
};
What I have up to now is the following:
static tree build_ddm_template_struct() {
tree type = lang_hooks.types.make_type(RECORD_
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities,
> like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it
is configured for GCC) used for a signif
> > GCC isn't really like that. Changes in one part can affect things much
> > later on, and you really have to know why. That doesn't mean you have
> > to understand all of the compiler, but you need to have a lot of
> > knowledge.
>
> This is a problem with GCC's lack of modularity, not with Bas
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Richard Kenner wrote:
> > > GCC isn't really like that. Changes in one part can affect things much
> > > later on, and you really have to know why. That doesn't mean you have
> > > to understand all of the compiler, but you need to have a lot of
> > > knowledge.
> >
> > This
On Wednesday 06 May 2009, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Is there an opaque vector type? Something that can be assigned
> to/from other vector types of the same size, without warning?
>
> I'm working on a coprocessor which has separate SIMD arithmetic
> operations for each data size, but only one SIMD logica
I'll be looking into this but I thought that GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS
is for branches ?
This is not my case. I've simplified my test case into:
struct test {
const char *name; /* full name */
chara; /* symbol */
signed char b;
unsigned short c;
Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> I'll be looking into this but I thought that GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS
> is for branches ?
No, absolutely not. GILA is a general filter that has overall control over
which forms of addressing modes used to address memory may be generated in RTL.
http://gcc.gnu.or
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph S. Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 6:51 PM
> To: Ian Lance Taylor
> Cc: Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List
> Subject: Re: increasing the number of GCC reviewers
>
>
> At the human level I suspect it would he
Ok, I wrongly read what this macro did. Sorry about that. I was
looking at the i386 port and use of this variable and this code came
up:
#ifdef REG_OK_STRICT
#define GO_IF_LEGITIMATE_ADDRESS(MODE, X, ADDR) \
do {\
if (legitimate_address_p ((MODE),
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
be, most things support it, and there are some cool possibilities,
like gerrit (http://code.google.com/p/gerrit/). It is precisely built
I think a critical feature of any fancy code review system (or of how it
is configured for
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Weddington, Eric wrote:
> From my experience having patches go to a mailing list is a sure way to
> have them get lost. When it goes into someone's inbox, it's likely to
> get pushed down, and "out of sight, out of mind" quickly. While the ML
> is archived, it is not as use
Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> It seems that I should do the same as them no for my solution. First
> implement the legitimate_address function and then probably define it
> in both macros.
Sounds about right.
> As for the target hook, we are using GCC 4.3.2 for the moment and,
> sadly, have
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> It is true however that currently we are not encouraging outsiders to
> contribute, because old timers work on mostly large patches (or large
> sequences of patches) that reviewers know about. For the same reason, it is
> easier for small patches to fal
In asking this, I'm particularly puzzled by code like this in
build_base_path in cp/class.c:
/* Don't bother with the calculations inside sizeof; they'll ICE if the
source type is incomplete and the pointer value doesn't matter. */
if (skip_evaluation)
{
expr = build_nop (bu
"Fehringer Franz" writes:
> I have exactly the same error like described in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2009-05/msg00323.html
> namely
> collect2: library libstdc++ -lsupc++ not found
> I have a POWER6 with AIX 6.1.2, for the build --disable-shared was used
> (i think this is the reason why
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Fehringer Franz" writes:
>
>> I have exactly the same error like described in
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2009-05/msg00323.html
>> namely
>> collect2: library libstdc++ -lsupc++ not found
> The bug is in the way that gcc/gpg++spec.c uses LIBSTDCXX_STATIC, or
> po
Paolo Bonzini writes:
>> Presumably the early return is OK within a sizeof expression; it is OK
>> within an expression like (0 ? x : y)?
>
> From reading the code, I'd say yes. The bug that Jason fixed is
> related to stuff that cannot appear within a constant expression
> except within sizeof
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers [mailto:jos...@codesourcery.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:52 AM
> To: Weddington, Eric
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor; Basile STARYNKEVITCH; GCC Mailing List
> Subject: RE: increasing the number of GCC reviewers
>
> > While I'm not suggesting
struct B {};
struct D : public B {
static const int i = sizeof((B*)(D*)0);
};
struct Z {};
struct A : Z {};
Z* implicitToZ (Z*);
struct B : A {
static const int i = sizeof(implicitToZ((B*)0));
};
struct B {};
struct D;
D* p;
struct D: public B
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> struct B {};
>>> struct D : public B {
>>> static const int i = sizeof((B*)(D*)0);
>>> };
>>>
>>> struct Z {};
>>> struct A : Z {};
>>> Z* implicitToZ (Z*);
>>> struct B : A {
>>> static const int i = sizeof(impl
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 08:15, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> This is a problem with GCC's lack of modularity, not with Basile's
>> point of view.
>
> I don't think it's a totally modularity issue. Compilers, by their nature,
> are some of the most complicated and interdependent programs around.
I agr
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 19:26 -0300, Cristianno Martins wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for helping me with those informations. From now on, I'll be
> checking the Graphite framework, and I intend to contribute to that by
> providing support to automatic parallelization. However, my project
> focus on mu
Dennis Clarke wrote:
> How did you do with the new PPL bits ? That went smoothly ?
They're not mandatory for 4.4.x so I've simply ignored them for now.
-tgc
Bernie Innocenti wrote:
I won't re-create the repository from scratch, then.
re-creating it from scratch should be fine as long as the metadata uses
svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc. I'd think that
git svn clone -s file://path/to/svn/root \
--rewrite-root=svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
would
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > How did you do with the new PPL bits ? That went smoothly ?
>>
> They're not mandatory for 4.4.x so I've simply ignored them for now.
ah .. how very tricky of you :-)
Dennis
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>>
>> I won't re-create the repository from scratch, then.
>
> re-creating it from scratch should be fine as long as the metadata uses
> svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc. I'd think that
>
> git svn clone -s file://path/to
31 matches
Mail list logo
