On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
> dlopen() in the C library. How should we patch the configury to disable
> LTO by default?
Doesn't setting unsupported_languages in toplevel configure.ac
work for you?
brgds, H-P
On 06/02/15 08:00, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
>> dlopen() in the C library. How should we patch the configury to disable
>> LTO by default?
>
> Doesn't setting unsupported_languages i
On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/02/15 08:00, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
> >> Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
> >> dlopen() in the C library. How should we patch the configury to disable
> >> LTO by def
On 02/06/2015 10:18 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 06/02/15 08:00, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
Android native GCC can't support LTO because of a lack of support for
dlopen() in the C library. How sho
On February 6, 2015 4:28:01 AM CST, Andrew Haley wrote:
>On 02/06/2015 10:18 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> On 06/02/15 08:00, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jan 2015, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Android native GCC can't support LTO because o
On 02/06/2015 11:05 AM, Cyd Haselton wrote:
> Technically not a bug, but a limitation of either fakechroot ported to
> Android, Android's severely stripped libc, or a combination of the two.
I think it's a bug. libfakechroot presents a version of dlopen() on
the assumption that the libc it's fro
--- the forwarded message follows ---
--- Begin Message ---
Code:
#include
#include
template
void f(std::tuple )
{
std::cout << "std::tuple\n";
}
template
void f(std::tuple )
{
std::cout << "std::tuple\n";
}
int main()
{
f(std::tuple{});
}
GCC accepts this code silently. But
On 2015-02-05 4:36 PM, sa...@hederstierna.com wrote:
Hi
When reviewing some code from LRA, I just saw some lines that looked a bit
strange,
could it be a possible typo perhaps?
The file "lra.c" from GC5 master branch current date
Line 469:
/* Try x = index_scale; x = x + disp;
> On Feb 6, 2015, at 5:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 02/06/2015 10:18 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> ...
>> Not sure what's not understood. IIUC you want to disable LTO
>> when building gcc natively on Android? As LTO is considered a
>> "language",
>
> ???
>
> LTO is considered a "lang
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 11:05 AM, Cyd Haselton wrote:
>> Technically not a bug, but a limitation of either fakechroot ported to
>> Android, Android's severely stripped libc, or a combination of the two.
>
> I think it's a bug. libfakechroot presents a
On 02/06/2015 04:11 PM, Cyd Haselton wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 02/06/2015 11:05 AM, Cyd Haselton wrote:
>>> Technically not a bug, but a limitation of either fakechroot ported to
>>> Android, Android's severely stripped libc, or a combination of the two.
>
On 02/02/2015 01:15 AM, Mr.reCoder wrote:
Dear gcc developer,
I have a code like this:
#include
void foo(int x)
{
int y;
x++;
y = 4;
}
int main(void)
{
foo(2);
return 0;
}
and compiled with "gcc -o outexec srcfile.c" command.
when disassemble the file we see that sending argume
I saw
config/darwin.h:#undef TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
config/darwin.h:#define TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
darwin_assemble_visibility
config/i386/cygming.h:#undef TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
config/i386/cygming.h:#define TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
i386_pe_assemble_visibility
config/
The documentation for libgccjit is now visible on the GCC website in
HTML form at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/jit/
(and is being built nightly).
Thanks to everyone who helped make this happen (Gerald Pfeifer, Joseph
Myers, Frank Ch. Eigler, Jeff Law, iirc).
The "Show Source" links on each p
On 6 February 2015 at 12:12, Victor wrote:
>
>
>
> --- the forwarded message follows ---
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Victor
> To: gcc-h...@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc:
> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 15:41:56 +0600
> Subject: Vararg templates. GCC vs Clang
> Code:
>
> #include
> #includ
On 7 February 2015 at 00:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing list.
I should have said it *was* more appropriate on that list, and should
have remained there. You could have pinged the gcc-help list, or just
been patient, before sendin
It's been a long time since I did any significant work on GCC,
and it is unlikely that I'll be doing much for the foreseeable
future.
While I still have some understanding of the modules I used to
maintain, I don't think it is reasonable to have me making
decisions on them. It's been too long and
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 2:20 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I saw
>
> config/darwin.h:#undef TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
> config/darwin.h:#define TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
> darwin_assemble_visibility
> config/i386/cygming.h:#undef TARGET_ASM_ASSEMBLE_VISIBILITY
> config/i386/cygming.h:#define TARGE
18 matches
Mail list logo
