Re: Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

Am 2012-03-28 00:43, schrieb mathog: The C99 bool data type, and the similar type in C++, currently (v 4.5.2) do not generate warnings for any of these sorts of operations: bool b; b = 3; b++; b += 2; if(b == 3) The last one is PR 44077. Franz

Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hello. I see that binutils, GCC and GDB still use the Automake's 'cygnus' option in some of their makefiles: $ grep_cygnus() { > grep -r 'cygnus' . \ >| perl -ne '/(^|[^@])cygnus($|(:!\.com\b))/ and print' \ >| grep -v '^[^:]*/Makefile\.in:'; \ > } $ (cd ~/src/binutils && g

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > But this option is going to be deprecated in Automake 1.12.1 and removed in > Automake 1.13: > > That page isn't very helpful since it doesn't give the non-deprecated way to achieve each part

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Hi Joseph, thanks for the feedback. On 03/28/2012 01:24 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> But this option is going to be deprecated in Automake 1.12.1 and removed in >> Automake 1.13: >> >> > > T

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The > assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that > Automake cannot find. This assumption is an artifact of how Cygnus > packages are typically b

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

On 03/28/2012 02:29 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >> - texinfo.tex is not required if a Texinfo source file is specified. The >> assumption is that the file will be supplied, but in a place that >> Automake cannot find. This assumption is an

What fixed PR c/51527 "infinite recursion in 'convert_to_integer'"?

With current trunk this PR has disappeared. However, with current 4.7 branch I can still reproduce it. So I wonder what/who fixed the problem -- maybe just as a side effect of some other work -- and if the change is appropriate to be back-ported to 4.7? Thanks for hints; I am not familiar with t

Re: The state of glibc libm

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > I've reviewed many (not yet all) of glibc's open "math" component bugs. I > hope some actual summary information on what the current state of libm > looks like may be of interest to the people involved in the various past > discussions of better li

Re: [bool wrapping] Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:20:52 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > (For example, b++ could easily wrap, and unexpectedly fast > depending on the size of bool on a platform.) Actually, it would appear that a bool (or a _Bool) can't wrap on increment, but it CAN wrap on decrement (and strangely, when the op

Re: status of GCC & C++

> Really? To start *writing* in C++, sure we want at least an initial > version of the coding guidelines. I pointed to those, because they > look like a reasonable start. > > To start *building* in C++, I do not think we need to agree on the > coding guidelines. We are already doing stages 2 and

Re: [bool wrapping] Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

On 28-Mar-2012 12:18, Michael Witten wrote: Wow, that was thorough! The behavior of b++ vs. b-- was interesting, but is yet one more reason why the warning is needed. Since b-- is equivalent to !b, and b++ is equivalent to 1, if that action is intended, there is no reason to use either the i

Re: [bool wrapping] Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 20:30, mathog wrote: > Since b-- is equivalent to [assigning] !b, > and b++ is equivalent to [assigning] 1, if > that action is intended, there is no reason > to use either the increment or decrement > operators on a bool. However, it seems to me that toggling the value w

Re: Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 20:30, David Mathog wrote: > ... > >> gcc -std=c99 -pedantic -Wall -O0 -fdump-tree-gimple d.c > > > That's a trick worth knowing. Thanks! > Ran that on a test program and in every case but one there was an implicit > > (int) b > > on sections of code which I though shoul

Re: [bool wrapping] Request for warnings on implicit bool to int conversions

On 28-Mar-2012 15:20, Michael Witten wrote: However, it seems to me that toggling the value with the idiom: --b; is aesthetically preferable to the more elaborate: b = !b; Aesthetically, not logically. Neither of these makes the least bit of sense: one less than False one less

Re: Binutils, GDB, GCC and Automake's 'cygnus' option

Stefano Lattarini writes: >> (I think avoiding info documentation being built in the source directory, >> so that builds could use a non-writable source directory, may have been >> one part). >> > There is probably some hack to obtain this effect (it's tested in the > testsuite > somewhere), but

Copyright assignment

I would like to get a form to assign all future contributions to the FSF.

Re: Copyright assignment

David Stone writes: > I would like to get a form to assign all future contributions to the FSF. Sent off-list. Ian

David Stone

[What is the name of the program or package you're contributing to?] GCC [Did you copy any files or text written by someone else in these changes? Even if that material is free software, we need to know about it.] No. I have not yet made any contributions. [Do you have an employer who might have

[GCC Steering Committee] Android sub-port reviewer

I volunteer as the reviewer for Android sub-port. Android/Bionic support is an extension over Linux port and is being gradually added for more and more architectures. I wrote the original Android GCC support for ARM (under a watchful design eye of Joseph Myers), and know how the bits fit toget