On 2017/8/14 20:41, Alan Modra wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 10:25:14PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 03:35:15AM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
Using "m"(*pStr) as an (unused) input parameter has no effect.
Use "m" (*(const void *)pStr) and ignore the warning, or use
"m" (*(
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 13 August 2017 at 19:20, Ron wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I'm looking for some clarification of how the __forced_unwind thread
>> > cancellation exceptions intersect with noexcept
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> For GCC 8, when --enable-checking=yes,rtl is used with x32 GCC,
> I got
>
> cc1plus: out of memory allocating 56137200 bytes after a total of
> 3139436544 bytes
> make[5]: *** [Makefile:1104: insn-extract.o] Error 1
> make[5]: *** Waiting for unfin
On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 13 August 2017 at 19:20, Ron wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I'm looking for some clarification of how the __forced_unwind
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 August 2017 at 19:20, Ron wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>
Hello,
Please consider supporting the Coroutines TS in GNU C++.
It is really important to make asynchronous programming usable.
Modern programs should be scalable to use the performance of multicore
processors. Stackless coroutines allow the programmer to scale to
millions of asynchronous reques
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
Even if it were possible, the
On 15/08/17 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the rest of gcc.gnu.org h
On 08/15/2017 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 15 August 2017 at 04:10, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
message looks like
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 06:22:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>> >>> On M
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
>
> (Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 81839.)
That's another 81839 replac
On 15/08/17 16:21, Ron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at
On 15/08/17 16:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Ron wrote:
>> Is changing the cancellation state really an expensive operation?
>> Moreso than the checking which I assume already needs to be done for
>> noexcept to trap errant exceptions?
>
> The noexcept checking only
On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2017-08/msg01303.html
(Strangely, 81841 is there, as is 8
On 15 August 2017 at 16:21, Ron wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 6:44 AM, Ron wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, A
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/15/2017 10:27 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Aug 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > > It looks like the data loss extends beyond 8/14. Bug 81840
> > > was created Sunday afternoon but is not in the database:
> > >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.o
On 15 August 2017 at 17:39, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Also currently std::thread runs the supplied function object inside a
> noexcept function. With your proposal cancellation would be blocked in
> any thread created by a std::thread, i.e. you could only cancel in the
> main() thread, or threads cr
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 05:39:10PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 15 August 2017 at 16:21, Ron wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 01:31:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> >> wrote:
> >> > On 15 August 2017 at 11:24, Richard Biener
> >>
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 05:37:21PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> On 15/08/17 16:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Ron wrote:
> >> Is changing the cancellation state really an expensive operation?
> >> Moreso than the checking which I assume already needs to be done for
Hello.
Together with Dmitry (ldv) , we've discovered that running test suite
from strace produces kernel OOPS, when kernel is compiled with gcc 7.1
or with gcc 7.2 , but not with gcc 6 :
$ git clone https://github.com/strace/strace.git
ttip:~/strace$ ./bootstrap
ttip:~/strace$ ./configure && make
Hi Anatoly.
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:50:45PM +0300, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Together with Dmitry (ldv) , we've discovered that running test suite
> from strace produces kernel OOPS, when kernel is compiled with gcc 7.1
> or with gcc 7.2 , but not with gcc 6 :
First, could you plea
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:08 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> Hi Anatoly.
>
> On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 09:50:45PM +0300, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> Together with Dmitry (ldv) , we've discovered that running test suite
>> from strace produces kernel OOPS, when kernel is compiled with gcc 7.1
Snapshot gcc-5-20170815 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20170815/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
On 08/15/2017 06:18 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> For GCC 8, when --enable-checking=yes,rtl is used with x32 GCC,
>> I got
>>
>> cc1plus: out of memory allocating 56137200 bytes after a total of
>> 3139436544 bytes
>> make[5]: *** [Makefile:1104: in
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 11:50 AM, Anatoly Pugachev wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Together with Dmitry (ldv) , we've discovered that running test suite
> from strace produces kernel OOPS, when kernel is compiled with gcc 7.1
> or with gcc 7.2 , but not with gcc 6 :
>
> $ git clone https://github.com/stra
From: Anthony Yznaga
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 17:45:12 -0700
> I compiled a kernel with gcc 7 and found that the compiler inserted a
> call to __multi3() in mq_attr_ok(). The sparc64 implementation of
> __multi3() was added by 1b4af13ff2cc specifically for gcc 7 and later,
> but it clobbers %g4 an
From: Anatoly Pugachev
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 21:50:45 +0300
> Together with Dmitry (ldv) , we've discovered that running test suite
> from strace produces kernel OOPS, when kernel is compiled with gcc 7.1
> or with gcc 7.2 , but not with gcc 6 :
Please try this patch:
diff --git a/arch/sparc/l
28 matches
Mail list logo
