On 25 March 2015 at 05:34, Yury Gribov wrote:
> On 03/24/2015 03:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I don't see any need to move pages (that would break old links).
>
>
> So why not fix links as well?
I mean other sites that link to gcc.gnu.org/wiki ... so we don't control them.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is on x86_64-w64-mingw32.
build/gengtype.exe \
-S
../../../../../../../opt/devel/gnu/src/gcc-mingw-w64/gcc-5.0.0/gcc -I
gtyp-input.list -w tmp-gtype.state
gtyp-input.list:101: file
../../../../../../../opt/devel/gnu/src/gc
Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
-Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3 but am
not having much luck Googling for the original submission in the
gcc-patches archives. According to
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, the initial c++-11 support
g
Hmm, this seems to be something I haven't noticed until now. It might
be new ...
I see that cp-tree.h is part of gtfiles in config-lang.in. So the
warning about being not tagged for that language is weird. Issue
might be not directly within gcc.
Instead it might be a make issue.
You could ask on
On 25 March 2015 at 16:16, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
> -Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3
Are you sure? It doesn't exist for 4.6.4 or anything later.
Are you thinking of -Wc++0x-compat ?
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 March 2015 at 16:16, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
>> -Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3
>
> Are you sure? It doesn't exist for 4.6.4 or anything later.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25 March 2015 at 16:16, Jack Howarth wrote:
Does anyone remember which FSF gcc release first added the
-Wno-c++11-extensions option for g++? I know it exists in 4.6.3
Are you sure? It doesn'
On 03/24/2015 03:26 PM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
Hi,
I am seeing a strange behavior when a compound initializer is used in a
structure initialization. A test case:
[[[
struct s {
int y;
unsigned long *x;
};
struct s foo = {
.y = 25,
.x = (unsigned long [SZ]){},
};
]]]
If SZ is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Short status for x86_64-w64-mingw32:
There seems to be an issue with lto. Running the gcc and g++ tests I get a lot
of ICEs I didn't got end of October last year. All like this:
lto1.exe: internal compiler error: in read_cgraph_and_symbols, at lto/lt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 25.03.2015 17:22, schrieb Kai Tietz:
> Hmm, this seems to be something I haven't noticed until now. It might be
> new ... I see that cp-tree.h is part of gtfiles in config-lang.in. So the
> warning about being not tagged for that language is weir
On 03/25/2015 10:09 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/24/2015 03:26 PM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
Hi,
I am seeing a strange behavior when a compound initializer is used in a
structure initialization. A test case:
[[[
struct s {
int y;
unsigned long *x;
};
struct s foo = {
.y = 25,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 25.03.2015 18:30, schrieb Rainer Emrich:
> Am 25.03.2015 17:22, schrieb Kai Tietz:
>> Hmm, this seems to be something I haven't noticed until now. It might
>> be new ... I see that cp-tree.h is part of gtfiles in config-lang.in. So
>> the warning
Regarding undefined behavior: this object has static storage, so I think
6.7.9-10 from C11 should apply:
Strictly speaking, once the behavior of a program is undefined,
even well-defined constructs can have unexpected effects. But
I do agree that dropping initialization for members with a valid
On 25 March 2015 at 18:53, Martin Sebor wrote:
> This was my mistake because specifying -ansi after -std=c11
> overrides the latter with -std=c90. (It would be nice if
> the driver warned about one option overriding another.)
In general that's useful, so you can add e.g. -O0 to the end of a
comman
Snapshot gcc-4.9-20150325 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20150325/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hi,
sorry if I missed part of the discussion about the new numbering scheme
and the answer to my question is already clear from that: why we do have
5.0 as Milestone in Bugzilla instead of 5.1?!?
Thanks,
Paolo.
16 matches
Mail list logo
