On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 03:28:26PM +0200, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
> But if the bug disappear when -O2 is turned off, I do suspect
> (*eventually*) some problem in the ARM back-end... Am I right ?
Probably/maybe/possibly. It also could be the case that MySQL is doing
something that invokes undefined
I believe the problem is that false (and bool()) have value 0, which is also a
pointer value in C (and in C++). C++ is attempting to do the least surprising
conversion, and in this case getting that 'wrong'. That is why test1 works and
test2 does not. I haven't bothered to check with the standard
The general problem is probably the same as PR 13358 (one that I've wished was
fixed for a while, myself). Unfortunately there is no way as of now to disable
this warning, short of disabling warnings entirely.
-Jack
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 01:18:11PM -0800, sabreman (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
>
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 09:35:33AM -0800, Andrew Thomas Pinski wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 9:23 AM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am trying to implement
>>
>> unsigned long long __rdtsc (void);
>>
>> for RDTSC as an intrinsic. It is easy to do it with asm statement.
>> But I am having a hard
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:20PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> A process can send a signal via kill. IOW, a malicious process can
> *control when the process would be interrupted* in order to get it into
> the signal handler with DF=1.
If the malicious process can send a signal to another pro
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:43:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Jack Lloyd wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:13:20PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>A process can send a signal via kill. IOW, a malicious process can
> >>*control when the process would be interrupt
On Tue, Jul 01, 2008 at 05:34:17PM +, x z wrote:
>
> I think an important point was missed in the discussion. Some seem to focus
> on the dishonest definition of __GNUC__ by non-GNU C compilers. That was not
> my point. My point is that if __GNUC__ is defined by CPP, not the GNU C
> comp
On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 03:47:49PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2008-07-02 00:12:33 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > This internal binary no longer exists. Instead, there is a "cpp"
> > binary installed in the user binary directory, which calls the "cc1"
> > binary to do the same preprocessi
On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:17:43PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 01:07:10PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > libgfortran calls fork/exec /bin/chmod to parse argument to chmod.
> > Is that OK to borrow code from coreutils which implements /bin/chmod
> > to properly implement chmod? coreu
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:29:26AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Olivier Hainque <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > genmodes.c uses the %n capabilities of printf to compute the width of
> > pieces it outputs. This causes troubles on Windows Vista, because ...
> >
> ><< Because of security r
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > a "real" illegal instruction, caused by g++ doing something different
> > that I expected with the String object as an argument? Or is the illegal
> > instruction just a "place marker" that is generated because I passed
> > a non-P
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 08:37:52PM +0100, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Tomash,
>
> > moonlight:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc-4.3-trunk/bin/gcc -O0 mmap.c -o mmap
> > moonlight:/tmp$ ./mmap
> > GCC is the best compiler ever!
> > moonlight:/tmp$ /usr/local/gcc-4.3-trunk/bin/gcc -O1 mmap.c -o mmap
> > m
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:50:00AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Create a beta that is released now and then release one once (or
> twice) a month until we release 4.3. This is seperate from a release
> candidate and the snapshot. The beta is get attention from some folks
> that would not have us
13 matches
Mail list logo
