Re: typos

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:41:42AM +0200, Veres Lajos wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I wrote a small misspell finder/fixer script and when I have a little > > spare time I clean OS projects with it. > > (https://github.com/vlajos/misspell_fixer) > > I ran it on t

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> Lots of warnings like this: >> >> ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally >> defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] >> >> when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) > > This warning is new in GCC 4.8, an

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: >> Lots of warnings like this: >> >> ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally >> defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] >> >> when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) > > This warning is new in GCC 4.8, an

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

On 3 July 2013 09:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > I keep being surprised noone's disabled it in gcc.jam yet. That wouldn't work for headers, as they get included when building with other build systems. Since this is new, I guess we can use pragmas to disable the warning, but that's a pain.

Re: typos

Hi, On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 09:55:14AM +0200, Veres Lajos wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Ondrej Bilka wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2013 at 12:41:42AM +0200, Veres Lajos wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I wrote a small misspell finder/fixer script and when I have a little > > > spare time I clean OS pro

RE: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

> On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: >>> Lots of warnings like this: >>> >>> ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally >>> defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] >>> >>> when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) >> >> This warning is new in G

Re: typos

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Martin Jambor wrote: > > And if the script will be done you should run it for the whole > > codebase. Otherwise the issues won't be fixed until anybody touches them. > > > > perhaps you should be aware that there are people who prefer exactly > that, though the discussions so f

Re: Git mirror: asan branch

Hi! On Wed, 3 Jul 2013 00:18:17 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > > If I configure my local Git checkout of the GCC Git mirror to include all > > branches, per , > > then I get: > > > > fatal: refs/remotes/ori

Re: Git mirror: asan branch

On 07/03/2013 02:47 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: OK, that of course works, but from the wiki page I got the idea that it explicitly was meant to merge these together. So assuming this used to work in the past, I wonder what so that it no longer does; such as Git allowing such duplicates merging in

GNU Tools Cauldron 2013 - Registrations are now closed (plus FAQ)

An update on this year's Cauldron. We have reached the maximum number of attendees that we can accept. Registrations are now closed. If you still wish to attend, contact us at tools-cauldron-ad...@googlegroups.com. We have started a waiting list and will let you know if a slot opens up If you

Remove the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__?

While thinking about C++ n3694 feature test macros I noticed we still define __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro in c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c. We got rid of all uses of it in libstdc++. I propose we get rid of it here too. User's shouldn't be relying on it. No? OTOH, it may have been a proxy for __c

Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx'

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, With gcc-4.7-20130629 and binutils-2.23.2 I'm getting Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx' There was no such issue with May' gcc snapshot and binutils-2.22. Is it a binutils-specific problem? Which version of binutils is know

Re: Remove the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__?

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: While thinking about C++ n3694 feature test macros I noticed we still define __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro in c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c. We got rid of all uses of it in libstdc++. I propose we get rid of it here too. User's shouldn't be relying on it

Re: Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx'

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Dmitry Mikushin wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > With gcc-4.7-20130629 and binutils-2.23.2 I'm getting > > Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx' > > There was no such issue with May' gcc snapshot and binutils-2

Re: Remove the __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__?

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote: > While thinking about C++ n3694 feature test macros I noticed we still define > __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ macro in c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c. > We got rid of all uses of it in libstdc++. > I propose we get rid of it here t

Re: typos

On Wed, 3 Jul 2013, Veres Lajos wrote: > Around 99% of the typos are in comments and documentations a few of them > are only in function/variable names (living code). > I think it is not really history obtrusive. > > I will create a small subset for preview and send it for reviewing. > (I would no

Re: Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx'

Dmitry Mikushin writes: > Error: no such instruction: `eovq -32(%rbp),%rdx' That's only a one-bit error away from "movq ..." ('m' = 0x6d = 0b 0110 1101, 'e' = 0x65 = 0b 0110 0101) Maybe run memory tester overnight? (This is from personal experience -- I had a bad stick of RAM that caused all

La mejor base de datos de Mexico

La mejor base de datos Mexicana a su alcance 10 millones de registros mayores de edad 765 mil empresas con datos completos Y por si fuera poco: 3 suites de software para windows y Mac 150 servidores SMTP ilimitados para envio masivo de correos Videotutoriales de uso Todo actualizado a Julio 20