Hello, I've just joined the list as I've returned to the GNU world after
almost 9 years.
Feels good to be back. :)
I've been reading up on GCC through various articles online and have
come to understand that GCC now is being written using C++.
Would I be correct in my assumption that the older (19
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
> Hello, I've just joined the list as I've returned to the GNU world after
> almost 9 years.
> Feels good to be back. :)
>
> I've been reading up on GCC through various articles online and have
> come to understand that GCC now is being written
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I like to contribute some patches to gcc. Therefor im asking kindly for the
copyright assignment forms and advice.
Cheers
Rainer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.
On Wed, 2 Jan 2013, Jeff Law wrote:
> I've always found lazily updating the copyright years to be error prone. If
> we could just update all of them now, which is OK according to the FSF
> guidelines we could avoid one class of problems.
I suspect dealing with generated files will be more compli
What is the status of STABS support?
I know that there is considerably more activity around DWARF than STABS.
It appears that STABS is largely in maintenance mode. Are there any
plans to deprecate STABS support? If STABS enhancements were made and
posted would they be frowned upon? Or would the
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:21 PM, David Taylor wrote:
> What is the status of STABS support?
>
> I know that there is considerably more activity around DWARF than STABS.
> It appears that STABS is largely in maintenance mode. Are there any
> plans to deprecate STABS support? If STABS enhancements
> What is the status of STABS support?
In terms of GDB, it is no longer actively maintained. But if you
submit patches, I will do my best to review them.
--
Joel
Hi David,
What is the status of STABS support?
Essentially it is in maintenance mode. But this is due to lack of
developers interested in extending STABS support, rather than a policy
of maintenance-only.
Are there any plans to deprecate STABS support?
No, none.
If STABS enhancemen
> "David" == David Taylor writes:
David> It appears that STABS is largely in maintenance mode. Are there any
David> plans to deprecate STABS support? If STABS enhancements were made and
David> posted would they be frowned upon? Or would they be reviewed for
David> possible inclusion in a f
Hello,
Consider the following test case:
void bar (void);
int foo (int b, int c, int d)
{
int r = 0;
if (b)
res = b * 2 + 4;
if (c)
{
if (d)
r = res;
else
__builtin_unreachable ();
}
return r;
}
This is typical for code in GCC itself in places wher
Thanks for the quick reply.
As per the C++ standard (ISO/IEC 14882, 1998 first edition)
Section 9: Classes definition says.
Complete objects and member subobjects of class type shall have nonzero size.
Corrent me if i'm wrong here, but from this i had concluded empty object and
structures are n
On 01/03/2013 12:01 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
Consider the following test case:
void bar (void);
int foo (int b, int c, int d)
{
int r = 0;
if (b)
res = b * 2 + 4;
if (c)
{
if (d)
r = res;
else
__builtin_unreachable ();
}
return
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "David" == David Taylor writes:
>
> David> It appears that STABS is largely in maintenance mode. Are there any
> David> plans to deprecate STABS support? If STABS enhancements were made and
> David> posted would they be frowned upon? Or
On 03 Jan 2013, at 21:53, David Edelsohn wrote:
> AIX still uses STABS. GCC produces it and GDB consumes it.
More precisely, AIX uses Stabx. It's similar to Stabs, but different in quite a
few ways. To add to the confusion, GCC produces and GDB consumes a hybrid of
Stabs and Stabx on AIX for
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 03 Jan 2013, at 21:53, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> AIX still uses STABS. GCC produces it and GDB consumes it.
>
> More precisely, AIX uses Stabx. It's similar to Stabs, but different in quite
> a few ways. To add to the confusion, GCC prod
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 9:52 AM, nick clifton wrote:
>> Switching to DWARF causes our build products directory (which contains
>> *NONE* of the intermediate files) to swell from 1.2 GB to 11.5 GB.
>> Ouch! The DWARF ELF files are 8-12 times the size of the STABS ELF
>> files.
>>
>> If the DWARF fi
> AIX still uses STABS. GCC produces it and GDB consumes it.
>
> Recent releases of AIX now support DWARF as well, but GCC and GDB have
> not been converted to use it on AIX.
Note that GNU ld is now completely usable; and one of the side
effects of using GNU ld is the ability to switch over to D
Thanks James. I understood it now.
--- Original Message ---
Sender : James Dennett
Date : Jan 04, 2013 05:28 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Re: Query for Empty Structure Extension.
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:35 AM, NAVEEN CHANDRAKAR wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply.
As per the C++ standard (I
18 matches
Mail list logo
