On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Elmar Krieger writes:
>>
>> The slowdown is not the same with other files, so I'm essentially sure
>> that this specific source file has some 'feature' that catches GCC at
>> the wrong leg. This raises my hopes that one of the GCC experts wants
On 08/09/2012 12:00 AM, Johan Lundberg wrote:
The C++11 support page (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/cxx0x_status.html)
lists decltype support as 'Yes' but with reference only to the old
N3243.
Just a general clarification (maybe obvious, but who knows): when a
paper is listed on that page, it's jus
On 08/08/2012 11:08 AM, William Swashbuckler wrote:
Hi,
I have recently read in several places that GCC now supports the
PowerPC VLE instruction set architecture as a target. However, I have
so far been unable to find any actual documentation on this? AFAICS
the online doc doesn't show any new t
Hi,
I have developed several patches for GCC and am wondering as a purely
open source non commercial developer whether there are any issues
regarding getting patches into GCC. Do I need to sign an agreement at
all ?
Many thanks in advance,
Aaron
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have developed several patches for GCC and am wondering as a purely
> open source non commercial developer whether there are any issues
> regarding getting patches into GCC. Do I need to sign an agreement at
> all ?
>
Depending on
On 09/08/12 17:54, Aaron Gray wrote:
Hi,
I have developed several patches for GCC and am wondering as a purely
open source non commercial developer whether there are any issues
regarding getting patches into GCC. Do I need to sign an agreement at
all ?
If you want the copyright assignment for
Hi,
I would like copyright assignment forms for GCC. I am an independent
open source developer with no commercial connections. I have not
contributed to GCC as of yet, but have a number of possible patches
waiting to be sent. Currently they are all mods of existing code.
Many thanks in advance,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Aaron Gray wrote:
> I would like copyright assignment forms for GCC. I am an independent
> open source developer with no commercial connections. I have not
> contributed to GCC as of yet, but have a number of possible patches
> waiting to be sent. Currently they a
Hi,
This command:
gcc -Wno-format-contains-nul -Wall -Werror
falls over if a format string contains a nul byte.
I think it should not. There needs to be a way for
collective warning options (e.g. "-Wall") to skip
over anything set by a more specific option.
("format-contains-nul" being fair
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This command:
>
>gcc -Wno-format-contains-nul -Wall -Werror
I think -Wall should over ride what comes before it. This is
different from -O though.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
>
> falls over if a format string contains a nul byte.
> I t
On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This command:
>
>gcc -Wno-format-contains-nul -Wall -Werror
>
> falls over if a format string contains a nul byte.
> I think it should not. There needs to be a way for
Indeed. My model for how options should interact in such cases is
appen
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> This command:
>>
>>gcc -Wno-format-contains-nul -Wall -Werror
>>
>> falls over if a format string contains a nul byte.
>> I think it should not. There needs to be a way for
>
> Indeed. My m
Hello all,
I'm testing out feedback optimization on a sample piece of code. I noticed
that the .gcno file that is output lists 10 blocks, yet the .gcda file that is
produced when I execute only contains 7 counts. I thought these were supposed
to correspond, but perhaps not? Can anyone explai
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 21:59:15 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> On Fri, 25 May 2012, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > If I apply this patch, which checks for duplicate hard registers within
> > -fira-share-save-slots, the following *-elf targets fail due to the assert:
> >
> > bfin cris m32c r
Hi,
What is the recommended way to skip specific (non target specific) testcases
for a subtargets?
There are a bunch of tests in the gcc testsuite that are too big (in
terms of code size or memory) for a subtarget of the avr target. The
subtarget is specified in the dejagnu board configurat
15 matches
Mail list logo
