Re: ELF2.0: Linkable struct

On Fri, 2025-01-31 at 15:49 +0900, The Cuthour via Gcc wrote: > Suppose we have the following two classes: > > === Vec.h === > class Vec { > int x, y, z; > }; > === end Vec.h === > > === Pix.h === > class Pix: Vec { > int r, g, b; > }; > === end Pix.h === > > If we add or remove a memb

ELF2.0: Linkable struct

Suppose we have the following two classes: === Vec.h === class Vec { int x, y, z; }; === end Vec.h === === Pix.h === class Pix: Vec { int r, g, b; }; === end Pix.h === If we add or remove a member variable in class Vec, it requires recompiling not only Vec.cc but also Pix.cc. I believ

Re: ELF2.0: Linkable struct

Hi struct image { vec2 pos[2]; std::vector pixels; }; Now if any of those structs are modified, members added or removed, it would require recompilation of the whole code that uses it. This is because the memory offsets to access the fields change and might fall out of the displacement r

gcc-12-20250130 is now available

Snapshot gcc-12-20250130 is now available on https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/12-20250130/ and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 12 git branch with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch

FOSDEM 2025 GCC (GNU Toolchain) devroom (was: GCC (GNU Toolchain) dev room - CFP)

Hi! FOSDEM 2025 coming up this weekend, and with that, another GCC (GNU Toolchain) devroom! Join us in person or online: . 🤖 Grüße Thomas with José and Marc On 2024-10-30T10:03:32+0100, we wrote: > After a very successful first participation last

New risc-v builder.sourceware.org CI workers (p550 and bpi-f3)

Hi, Thanks to RISC-V International we got 3 new buildbot CI workers. One HiFive Premier P550 https://www.sifive.com/boards/hifive-premier-p550 and two Banana Pi BPI-F3 https://wiki.banana-pi.org/Banana_Pi_BPI-F3 They have been used for testing the proposed Valgrind risc-vv backend: https://bugs.

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On 1/30/25 4:29 PM, David Malcolm wrote: Arguably the state-merging code could be smarter here; I haven't investigated the details, but have filed it as PR analyzer/118702 here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118702 Thanks. You might be also interesting in https://gcc.gnu.org/

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On Thu, 2025-01-30 at 09:03 +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, 09:00 Dmitry Antipov, > wrote: > > > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the > > compiler emit > > warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the > > example > >

On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the compiler emit warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the example below? struct T { int a; int b; }; extern int bbb (struct T *, int *); extern int ccc (struct T *, int *); extern int ddd (struct T *,

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On Thu, 30 Jan 2025, 09:00 Dmitry Antipov, wrote: > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the > compiler emit > warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the example > below? > Warnings are always going to be somewhat unreliable. You need a proper st

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > > > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the > > compiler emit > > warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the exam

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the compiler > emit > warning about possibly uninitialized 'y' passed to 'ddd()' in the example > below? > > struct T { >int a; >int b; > }; > > extern int bbb (stru

Re: On -Wmaybe-uninitialized

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:59 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:48:43AM +0100, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:01 AM Dmitry Antipov wrote: > > > > > > With (probably) -Wmaybe-uninitialized and/or -Wextra, shouldn't the > > > compiler emit > > > w