On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
> default.
>
> The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test changing
> the default on all primary targets (assuming I can get them from the GCC
On 04/03/2012 10:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Stefano" == Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
> Stefano> On a second though, by double-checking the existing code, I
> Stefano> couldn't see how the 'cygnus' option could possibly influence
> Stefano> the location of the generated info files -- and it t
On 04/04/2012 01:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Pedro Alves writes:
>>> OK, you've all made clear you have your sensible reasons to have the '.info'
>>
>> ...
>>> it available only though the new, undocumented option named (literally)
>>> "hack!info-in-builddir". I hope this is acceptable to you.
>>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Romain Geissler
wrote:
>
> Le 3 avr. 2012 à 18:02, David Malcolm a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
>> default.
>>
>> The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test changing
>> the default
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:02 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-03 at 15:23 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 7:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >> I wrote a script and ported my proposed API for GCC plu
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jiangning Liu wrote:
>
>> So I suppose for this specific case a pass that performs type
>> promotion/demotion
>> (as was discussed repeatedly) would be a better thing, and an enablement
>> of trivial redundancy removal.
>>
> This case is from a real benchmark and t
On 04/04/2012 12:53 AM, Miles Bader wrote:
> I suspect there are better, cleaner, ways to accomplish the underlying
> goal, but I suppose the gcc maintainers don't want to spend the time
> fiddling around with their build infrastructure for such a minor
> issue...
Why speculate? I haven't seen
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
>>> default.
>>>
>>> The mechanics of the chang
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> (not sure that I can veto anything - heh)
I found out that is the only power a Release Manager has -- apart from
fixing the bug himself or herself ;-p
-- Gaby
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 bui
Hi,
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
-- Gaby
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, David Edelsoh
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like to see
2) a patch that _properly_ wraps a C++ class for consumption by our garbage
collector (thus
On 4/3/12 9:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
I appreciate the motivation, but this may cause major problems on
non-GNU/Linux platforms. Testing on all primary targets is not
enough.
I can test on other targets, as well. What targets do you have in mind?
If I don't have access to them, I'll nee
An idea whose time has come.
--- On Wed, 4/4/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
> Comments?
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
>> branch/patch out
>> that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like
>> to see
>> 2) a patch that _prop
On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2) can be combined
> by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, with proper GC support.
> (not sure that I can veto anything - heh)
I don't think I can veto anything, but I'll go on the
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2) can be combined
>> by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class, with proper GC support.
>> (not sure that I can veto anything -
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
> Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
Andrew.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
>> Comments?
>
> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
> by default?
I consider it a separate issue.
-Wall is a
On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
>>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
>>>
>>> Umm,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 04/04/2012 01:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> For GCC-4.8, I would
Tristan Gingold writes:
> On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>>
>> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
>> default.
>>
>> The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test changing
>> the default on all primary targets (assu
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> Note there's nothing I'm planning to do, nor I should do, in this regard:
> the two setups described above are both already supported by the current
> automake implementation (but the last one is not encouraged, even though
> it makes perfect sense i
On Apr 4, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Tristan Gingold writes:
>
>> On Apr 3, 2012, at 7:37 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
>>> default.
>>>
>>> The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volun
> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes:
Richard> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
Richard> compiled by a C++ compiler? ...
If you mean gdb problems, please file bugs.
Tom
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> For Alpha, gas crashes during libstdc++ build. From initial investigation,
> this looks manageable. But Alpha object format is quite old, and has no
> support for comdat (but weak symbols should work).
I believe weak symbols should suf
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes:
>
> Richard> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
> Richard> compiled by a C++ compiler? ...
>
> If you mean gdb problems, please file bugs.
I think I filed the most ann
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>> "Richard" == Richard Guenther writes:
>>
>> Richard> Oh, and did we address all the annoyances of debugging gcc when it's
>> Richard> compiled by a C++ compiler? ...
>>
>> If you m
On Apr 4, 2012, at 4:37 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
>> For Alpha, gas crashes during libstdc++ build. From initial investigation,
>> this looks manageable. But Alpha object format is quite old, and has no
>> support for comdat (but
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
>> Comments?
>
> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
> by default?
I assume that Gaby is talking about making -Wall the default for users
of
On 4/4/12 8:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I agree for the idea of converting all of GCC to C++ (whatever that means).
Right. The conversion that does happen, can be gradual. One other big
advantage I see in this effort, is the transition to commonly used
programming idioms and patterns.
On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
>> by default?
>
> I assume th
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Andrew Haley writes:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
>>>
>>> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
by default?
I assume that Gaby is talking ab
On 4/4/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2012 Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > On 04/04/2012 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > So - I'll veto the switch unless I see 1) and 2). 1) and 2)
> > > can be combined by transitioning vec.h to a C++ template class,
> > > with proper GC support. (not
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
>>> Comments?
>>
>> Umm, should this really happen at exactly the same time as C++
>> by default?
>
> I as
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 03:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Andrew Haley writes:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
>>>
>>> Umm, should this really happen a
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Haley writes:
>>
>>> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> Umm, should this really
On 04/04/2012 12:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haleywrites:
On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
Comments?
Umm,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 12:04 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/04/2012 08:56 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/04/2012 10:44 AM, Gabriel Dos Re
> >> We do have regular requests for this, so it is not just out of thin
> >> air.
> >
> > Perhaps, but I think that changing the default like this is far too
> > invasive. ?GCC should do what it's told, if a user asks for warnings,
> > give them, if they don't, then don't.
>
> It is hard to defi
On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Really? Such as what?
Such as "I wrote a perfectly legal C program, and gcc spewed out
a ton of messages."
Andrew.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 19:57:20 +
Thibault Raffaillac wrote:
> Bump!
>
> Let me renew my interest in contributing through GSoC with post-compilation
> feedback (This was not an early april joke). Do you think it could lead to an
> acceptable GSoC proposal? (mentor interested?)
Feedback can be s
Sometimes, we have to be brave to challenge tradition. The world around
us is moving and we definitely want GCC to remain competitive. It is
hard to define what "it's told" means without tripping over.
The interesting thing about -Wall is that it is pretty safe, for the most part,
in terms of
On 4/4/2012 2:02 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The interesting thing about -Wall is that it is pretty safe, for the most part,
in terms of false positives.
And, for the record, I find lots of false positives, the front end of
GNAT has a lot of junk initialiations marked "keep back end quiet".
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am
quasi-illiterate).
That's also the default philosophy in GNAT, there never should be false
positives
Hi,
X32 support has been checked into Linux kernel v3.4-rc1.
I started submitting x32 glibc and GDB patches. I added
TLS specification to x32 psABI:
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/documents/abi.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1
I am planning to submit x32 extension to x86-64 psABI
soon if there are n
Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> I encourage you to submit the MIPS Android patches to
> gcc-patches@. And, as long as your changes preserve the
> status quo of mips-*-* being big-endian by default and
> mipsel-*-* being little-endian by default, there should be no
> major obstacles to merge those in.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> >> We do have regular requests for this, so it is not just out of thin
>> >> air.
>> >
>> > Perhaps, but I think that changing the default like this is far too
>> > invasive. ?GCC should do what it's told, if a user asks for warnings,
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>
>> IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
>> it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am
>> quasi-illiterate).
>
>
> That's also th
> The trouble is that most users find it an annoyance and don't
> remember. And they ask: if it is so simple, why isn't it included by
> default?
Huh? -Wall is supposed to be simple to remember, but its implementation and
effects are of course not simple at all.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The trouble is that most users find it an annoyance and don't
>> remember. And they ask: if it is so simple, why isn't it included by
>> default?
>
> Huh? -Wall is supposed to be simple to remember, but its implementation and
> effects are
Hi, I'm new in gcc, and maybe misunderstand the constraint modifier '+'.
As the internal document says, '+' means an inout parameter. In my
mind, it means the instruction both reads and writes the pseudo
register.
Assuming I have a pattern like:
(define_insn "lssu"
[(set (match_operand:m1 0 ..
Handong Ye writes:
> Hi, I'm new in gcc, and maybe misunderstand the constraint modifier '+'.
> As the internal document says, '+' means an inout parameter. In my
> mind, it means the instruction both reads and writes the pseudo
> register.
>
> Assuming I have a pattern like:
>
> (define_insn "ls
On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim.
But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests
for a change, and you always have to be careful in considering
such input, because of course people who agree with the status
quo do not write
On 4/4/2012 6:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default as
it is in gfortran (don't ask for examples of such warnings for C, I am
qu
domi...@lps.ens.fr (Dominique Dhumieres) writes:
> PS -Wall is a simple enough option to be remembered by all users who
> need it
As is -Wno-all, of course.
> (if they don't use it, they don't want it).
That isn't necessarily the case.
In my experience, there seem to be a lot of developers who
Robert Dewar writes:
> We have run into people running benchmarks where they were
> specifically prohibited from using other than the default
> options, and gcc fared badly in such comparisons.
Yeah, there was the silly "benchmark" at phoronix where they came to
the conclusion that tcc was a bett
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 7:03 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> Again, this proposal does not come out of a whim.
>
>
> But it does seem to come out of a few anecdotal requests
> for a change,
It does appear very disturbing that you would dismiss repeated
r
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/4/2012 6:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/4/2012 2:34 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>>
IMO only the warnings in C that are likely errors should be the default
>>>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> For instance, how about adding -Wall to the default options now, and
> then re-evaluate the issue based on any complaints that come in from
> people using snapshots?
I believe this would offer far more evidence for/against the notion
of the c
Miles Bader writes:
> For instance, how about adding -Wall to the default options now, and
> then re-evaluate the issue based on any complaints that come in from
> people using snapshots? That's hardly a perfect method, as the sort
> of people who run compiler snapshots are maybe not entirely
> r
Can someone summarize what the most useful warnings people are expecting
that -Wall would bring?
I suspect not all of -Wall would actually be welcome/a good idea by default,
and we might be looking for a better compromise where most warnings are
enabled by default, but not "all".
In particular, I
67 matches
Mail list logo
