On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even
> > ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up
> > with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead
> > of helpin
On 2012-04-05 16:44:28 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/5/2012 4:24 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >Personally, as a matter of *style*, I eliminate such cases either by
> >initializing the variable or restructuring the function. But this is very
> >much a question of style, not of correctness.
>
> In
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even
>> > ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up
>> > with a strange mish-mash
> when you say that, do you mean you would prefer and expect:
> 1. native C++ style, or
> 2. you would like the C-style round-about and paraphrasing to remain
> unperturbed
> ?
>
> The reason I ask is that I expect a "proper" C++ implementation would come
> with a C++-native style of usage.
I
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 02:45:55AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even
> >> > ignoring the bugs inevita
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> when you say that, do you mean you would prefer and expect:
>> 1. native C++ style, or
>> 2. you would like the C-style round-about and paraphrasing to remain
>> unperturbed
>> ?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that I expect a "proper" C++ imp
30.3.2012 19:03, Mao Ito kirjoitti:
I got stuck on a problem.
Actually, I could install "arm-eabi" cross-compiler for c, c++.
The problem is about "arm-eabi-gcj" (i.e. for Java). "arm-elf" version
> cross-compiler was successfully installed for c, c++, Java. But,
> after that, I realized that m
On 2012-04-10 14:48:05 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/05/2012 12:30 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > On 2012-04-05 11:55:45 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> On 04/05/2012 11:50 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> >>> On 2012-04-04 20:01:27 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/04/2012 07:11 PM, Gabriel
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Hi Richard,
>>> I am testing a patch to sink load of memory to prope
> But IMHO not sufficient for a switch. The GCC C++ proponents should do
> more on a branch to convince. Yes, the syntactic suger for vec.h isn't
> very nice, but the actual implementation is very clever and heavily tuned
> for GCC's needs; if we convert to C++ just because of vec.[ch], we open
>
> Expressing an idea in C takes me more lines (roughly 2-3 fold) than
> in C++, so I am a bit puzzled by your observation.
We're specifically discussing vec.[ch] here, which is a clever attempt at
implementing vectors in C, with macro magic all over the place.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 2012-04-08 18:56:27 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Anyway, GCC prints the option that controls a warning as part of the
> diagnostic, so it's trivial to find which options control the
> diagnostics that are annoying you.
And it's fine that using the -Wno-... form doesn't make the
compilation f
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe -Wstandard isn't the best name though, as "standard" usually
> >> means something quite specific for compilers, and the warnin
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
Hi Rich
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohn
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incrementally,
>>> but the GCC community probably will not see much ben
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:24 +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> > >> > exp->as_component_ref().get_field() ..
>>
>> > > Actually it's not questionable. The above stuff is _
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>
>> Turns out if-conversion checks whether gimple statement traps or not.
>> For the statement "d0_6 = d[D.5150_5];", it assumes
2012/4/10 Dave Korn :
> On 10/04/2012 17:41, Paweł Sikora wrote:
>> On Tuesday 10 of April 2012 10:46:14 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:34:32PM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
Class hierarchy is one such feature that is useful. Assuming we have
two hierarchies for gcc
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/10/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > On 4/9/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 10:55:46AM -0700, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> > > > A build conversion to C++ is a precondition t
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep
>> enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them really
>> should be at least by default considered just as normal statements
>> (e.g. gl
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> But IMHO not sufficient for a switch. The GCC C++ proponents should do
>> more on a branch to convince. Yes, the syntactic suger for vec.h isn't
>> very nice, but the actual implementation is very clever and heavily tuned
>> for GCC's nee
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Turns out if-conversion checks whether gimple statement traps or
On 04/11/2012 02:10 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Expressing an idea in C takes me more lines (roughly 2-3 fold) than
in C++, so I am a bit puzzled by your observation.
We're specifically discussing vec.[ch] here, which is a clever attempt at
implementing vectors in C, with macro magic all over the
On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and
> the goal post moving.
> Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we
> switch to C++?
Frankly, despite all this discussion, we still don't really know wha
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> manipulation -- be it C or C++. However I think this is really more
> about the general perceptions and how future developers feel about it.
If GCC would ever be in C++, that would be a very strong argument for
me _not_ to touch
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and
>> the goal post moving.
>> Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we
>> switch to C++?
>
> Fran
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
> > completion tools.
>
> Honestly I care 1000 times more for existing GCC developers. Before
> new programmers
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
>> > completion tools.
>>
>> Honestly I care 1000 time
2012/4/11 Paweł Sikora :
> On Wednesday 11 of April 2012 14:57:53 Torvald Riegel wrote:
>
>
>
>> Now, how many release cycles do we have until LLVM is basically good
>
>> enough to be used as a distro compiler
>
>
>
> freebsd-9 switches to clang/llvm as a distro compiler.
>
> some info @ http://wik
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and
>> the goal post moving.
>> Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we
>> switch to C++?
>
> Fran
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
>> Please don't dismiss this so easily. Of course this is just an example
>> and nothing major, but I believe many people will use tab completion on
>> the shell, for example, and code completion is really similar. On the
>> shell, or wit
On 04/11/2012 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> However, the concern you raised is only one part of the problem. The
> other is that, put in a simplified way, GCC is competing with LLVM about
> new and/or non-fulltime-compiler developers. For me, it looks like LLVM
> is more appealing to them, an
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue
> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem
> to be the same people who insist on seeing significant part of GCC
> converted to C++ be
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue
>> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem
>> to be the same people who in
On 4 October 2011 08:08, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've have received news from Walter Bright that the license of the D
> frontend has been assigned to the FSF. As the current maintainer of
> GDC, I would like to get this moved forward, starting with getting the
> ball rolling. What would need
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 15:13 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, an
On 11 April 2012 13:57, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> Now, how many release cycles do we have until LLVM is basically good
> enough to be used as a distro compiler (e.g., until code quality and
> confidence in bug freedom is sufficiently similar)? If we haven't
> ensured that GCC is appealing by this ti
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue
>> that it would be pointless to convert the existing codebase to C++ seem
>> to be the same people who in
Diego Novillo writes:
> On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
>> 9 to 11) if desired.
>
> That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
The sparc-sun-solaris2.11 bootstrap also completed
On 4/11/12 11:19 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Diego Novillo writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
The sparc-sun-sol
Andrew Haley writes:
> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>
>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>> warning. I would not want it on by default since it forces users to
>> write too many
On 04/11/2012 05:18 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would not want it
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On 4/10/12 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohn
>>> wrote:
>>>
Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incre
I have created the SVN branch cxx-conversion to host all the
mini-projects aimed at exploring the C++ conversion. Everyone is
welcome to contribute to it.
The branch has been configured to build in C++ mode by default.
I have also created a wiki page to coordinate conversion efforts
and document
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have created the SVN branch cxx-conversion to host all the
> mini-projects aimed at exploring the C++ conversion. Everyone is
> welcome to contribute to it.
>
> The branch has been configured to build in C++ mode by default.
>
> I have al
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Andrew Haley writes:
>
>> On 04/05/2012 01:28 PM, Michael Veksler wrote:
>>
>>> As for specific warnings, I hate that the the code (a&&b || c&&d),
>>> which did not cause a warning on older gcc version now gives a
>>> warning. I would no
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:43 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:24 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep
>>> enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them really
>>> should be at l
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> manipulation -- be it C or C++. However I think this is really more
>> about the general perceptions and how future developers feel about it.
>
> If GCC would ever be in C+
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
>> before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
>> general-purpose 20-bit integral type in gcc?
>
> If you're usin
On 04/11/2012 06:53 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>>> And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
>>> before) to believe PSImode is the wrong way to support a
>>> general-pur
Mostly agreed. In particular, the discussions should be more concrete
-- instead of voting on moving everything to C++ which can create a
huge chaos, we should first carefully partition the components that
are candidates for the migration (as mentioned by Richard). For
instance,
1) core APIs
a)
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Bernd Schmidt
> wrote:
>> On 04/11/2012 09:45 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and
>>> the goal post moving.
>>> Are you essentially requiri
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:57 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and about code
>> > completion tools.
>>
>> Honestly I care 1000 time
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>> > Think about programmers new to GCC for a second, and ab
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 02:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>> However, the concern you raised is only one part of the problem. The
>> other is that, put in a simplified way, GCC is competing with LLVM about
>> new and/or non-fulltime-compiler developers.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 06:53 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Bernd Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2012 05:24 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
And is there any reason (other than it doesn't seem to have been done
before) t
(Resent to right list.)
I'm maintaining an out-of-tree back-end (Texas Instruments MSP430)
based on years of contributions from a variety of people, affecting
binutils, gcc, and gdb. Whether it can ever be merged (some of the
original contributors have disappeared), I'd like an assignment form
fo
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:44 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 08:20:05AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> The reason why I am mystified is that the people who seem to argue
>>> that it would be pointless to convert the
On 4/11/12 1:33 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
(Resent to right list.)
I'm maintaining an out-of-tree back-end (Texas Instruments MSP430)
based on years of contributions from a variety of people, affecting
binutils, gcc, and gdb. Whether it can ever be merged (some of the
original contributors have dis
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Torvald Riegel w
On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>
> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code
> quality, performance, etc, but the advantage and gap is quickly
> reducing (e.g, LLVM is the default compiler in Xcode) -- and other
> advantages in LLVM (will soon) outweigh it
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:30:36 -0700
Xinliang David Li wrote:
[..]
>
> yes -- GCC is not considered old and not 'cool' -- so it is hard to
> advertise. One criteria to see GCC's future popularity is how widely
> it is adopted by academia ..
Do you mean used by academia (including teaching program
On 04/11/2012 07:26 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> GCC's diagnostics have got a lot better recently.
>
> The http://clang.llvm.org/diagnostics.html page compares clang's
> diagnostics to GCC 4.2, which was outdated long before that page was
> written.
>
> It doesn't help GCC's cause when people ke
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:30:36 -0700
> Xinliang David Li wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> yes -- GCC is not considered old and not 'cool' -- so it is hard to
>> advertise. One criteria to see GCC's future popularity is how widely
>> it is adopted by
O
This one is an interesting case, since there are strong arguments on
both sides.
I enabled the C++ warning about the precedence of&& and || (it's been
in C for many years). It found real bugs in real code, bugs that had
existed for years.
I think for ordinary programmers, the fact that AND
2012/4/11 Diego Novillo :
> I have created the SVN branch cxx-conversion to host all the
> mini-projects aimed at exploring the C++ conversion. Everyone is
> welcome to contribute to it.
>
> The branch has been configured to build in C++ mode by default.
>
> I have also created a wiki page to coor
Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Honestly I care 1000 times more for existing GCC developers. Before
> new programmers will have an easier time with GCC_existing_ GCC
> developers will have to spend at least two GCC release cycles (that's
>
On Wednesday 11 of April 2012 12:35:18 Diego Novillo wrote:
> I have created the SVN branch cxx-conversion to host all the
> mini-projects aimed at exploring the C++ conversion. Everyone is
> welcome to contribute to it.
>
> The branch has been configured to build in C++ mode by default.
>
> I h
On 4/11/12 3:44 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
will this project use (new) gcc mailing list or should we poison ;)
the core gcc@ list with [cxx-conversion] marker?
This is no different than any other development branch. We use tagging
to distinguish patches and messages related to it.
Diego.
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>
>> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code
>> quality, performance, etc, but the advantage and gap is quickly
>> reducing (e.g, LLVM is the default compiler in
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenth
On 11 April 2012 21:00, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 11 April 2012 18:24, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, GCC is still in some comfortable zones such as generated code
>>> quality, performance, etc, but the advantage and gap is
Hello I am a programmer architect Mr.Zmicer .
Please consider and answer please. Why are you still doing with the release of
the compiler language c++ . who will work directly on the phone. Right on
symbian 9? How well would be if a person would get the phone out of his pocket
and it will be ab
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 10:30:36 -0700
> Xinliang David Li wrote:
> [..]
>>
>> yes -- GCC is not considered old and not 'cool' -- so it is hard to
>> advertise. One criteria to see GCC's future popularity is how widely
>> it is adopted b
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 21:30 +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 11:24 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> > Honestly I care 1000 times more for existing GCC developers. Before
> >> > new programmers will have an easier time with GCC_existing_ GCC
> >> >
On Wednesday 11 of April 2012 11:43:36 Richard Guenther wrote:
> > () The overloadable operator new means that memory can be
> > _implicitly_ allocated in the right place.
>
> Implicit allocation is bad. In a compiler you want to _see_ where you
> spend memory.
in c++ you can overload new/delet
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 01:14 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I can't derive a definition of "token" from your example that seems
> > meaningful. It can't be parser tokens I assume, because you split
> > GET_FIELD_DECL (but why in 2 not 3?).
>
> FIELD_DECL is a single object, see tree.def.
So, you
Hello,
GCC has this internal include file "included/syslimits.h". This file, uses a
non-standard C include directive "include_next" to recursively include
"limits.h" from a second location.
I need to change this syslimits.h for our internal use, since I cannot easily
handle "include_next"
> So, you only know it's 2 tokens once you know all of tree.def? I'm
> aware that this is just some arbitrary example, but I believe this
> actually strengthens the concern I had.
Well, if you don't know of FIELD_DECL, you won't go very far, really.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 23:13 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > So, you only know it's 2 tokens once you know all of tree.def? I'm
> > aware that this is just some arbitrary example, but I believe this
> > actually strengthens the concern I had.
>
> Well, if you don't know of FIELD_DECL, you won't go
On 4/11/12, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2012 Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> > On 4/10/12, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > That when stepping through code in the debugger you keep
> > > enterring/exiting these one liner inlines, most of them
> > > really should be at least by default considered just
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 14:48, David Weatherford wrote:
> Tests pass for xtensa-unknown-elf on 64-bit linux with host gcc 4.6.3.
Thanks!
Diego.
Andrew Pinski writes:
> The main reason why LLVM is the default compiler in XCode is license
> rather any technical reason.
Yes.
> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few
> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most
> important ones).
No
Jonathan Wakely writes:
> I get my views on their relative merits from actually using GCC and
> clang, not from out of date webpages.
Me too, and I think clang's are better.
Simply having caret diagnostics and good suggestions are quite important
for people who are not C++ experts.
Ian
"Mark Galeck (CW)" writes:
> GCC has this internal include file "included/syslimits.h". This file, uses
> a non-standard C include directive "include_next" to recursively include
> "limits.h" from a second location.
>
> I need to change this syslimits.h for our internal use, since I cannot
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few
>> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most
>> important ones).
>
> No. clang's diagnostics for C++ are much much better than GCC's.
> Obviously GCC's can improve, but to
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor writes:
>>> And GCC usually has better diagnostic than clang except in those few
>>> areas which it does not (those some might say those areas are the most
>>> important ones).
>>
>> No. clang's diagnostics for C++ are much
87 matches
Mail list logo
