I'm interested in your site. I just added your link http://gcc.gnu.org in my
website: http://hotelfrance24.com/Rome-site-list50/
Please add my link:
Title: Clock widget
URL: http://time-24.org/en/widgets/
html code: http://time-24.org/en/widgets/";>Clock widget
Best regards.
build log looks just like this except that it doesn't
check for elf_getshdrstrndx at all but then I get an unresolved
reference to elf_getshdrstrndx at link time in stage 2. Is this the
same problem? Should I add it to the bug form?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44079
Thanks,
Mike
directory I get this:
configure:3233: /home/mike/GCC-obj-dir/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/mike/GCC-obj-dir/./gcc/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/
-B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem
/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include-c -g -O2 conftest.c
On 05/17/2010 12:46 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 1:44 PM, mike wrote:
Sorry for the newbie question ...
This question is more appropriate for gcc-help.
Sorry. Wasn't sure which to send to.
You need to set your LD_LIBRARY_PATH environment to point
t
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Back-End.html
This mentions a file "config.gcc" which I can't find in the GCC source.
This page tells too little I guess.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Machine-Desc.html
This stuff would be useful if the GCC build process recognized that I
made s
or the new VM/machine?
Mike
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 17, 2006, at 7:07 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
mv gcc/gt-tree-ssa-operands.h /tmp
/usr/src/Lang/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c:2571:34: error: gt-tree-
ssa-operands.h: No such file or directory
Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I hit myself in the head.
Doctor: Don't do that.
Why is th
On Oct 17, 2006, at 8:05 AM, Dino Puller wrote:
i'm looking for a statistic of how many expressions simplification
may be possible on source code
One way would be:
http://www.cs.fit.edu/~mmahoney/compression/text.html
though, this assumes a particular definition of simplification. For
ot
On Oct 17, 2006, at 1:32 PM, gbiaki wrote:
I have just downloaded the openGL libs through cygwin/setup.exe
Wrong list. Try the cygwin list instead.
Sent from the gcc - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
:-(
On Oct 17, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Saul Krasny wrote:
I need to put up a cc development environment on an MCR SVR4 MP RAS
unix. The machines I have don't have any c compiler except the
hidden one the os build uses.
How can I go about this?
Build a cross compiler. See the web site on how to buil
On Oct 18, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
I need to check for a non-0 return value in dg-compile testcases in
gcc.
I'd not worry about it in general. The exit status should be properly
checked for every other compile line and it should be ok.
On Oct 26, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Murali Vemulapati wrote:
what is the release number for gcc trunk (mainline)?
$ cat gcc/BASE-VER
will always show you the correct information, presently it says:
4.3.0
On Oct 26, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
The ones that were of particular interest were the libgfortran
ones, Jack was trying to build on a G4 and had hopes they might fix
his build.
Jack confirms that a regeneration of libgfortran fixed his build. He
also reports that boehm-gc has
On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Copies of the correct sources were put in:
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/
mrs $ bunzip2 ? :-( I just installed the broken one and didn't worry about it.
I'm sure it'll come back to bite me. I wish the mpfr people could be
swa
On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
3 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file tests/texp2.c.rej
?
I'm informed that --dry-run is broken... Very odd, so unfortunate.
On Oct 29, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
Mike> libjava/configure
I updated (svn trunk) and re-ran autoconf here, and didn't see any
change.
Hum, I don't know off-hand if your autoconf 2.59 isn't quite 2.59, or
mine is strange, or I'm getting some sort of cross
On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Mark Shinwell wrote:
What do others think?
My only concern is that we have tons of customers with tons of code
and you don't have any and that you break their code. I don't have
any idea if this would be the case or not, I don't usually do the
vector bugs.
On Oct 31, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
#define vector __attribute__((vector_size(16) ))
vector int f(vector int, vector unsigned int);
int g(void)
{
vector int t;
vector int t1;
vector unsigned int t2;
t2 = f(t,t1);
}
Our 3.3 compiler gives:
t.c:10: error: incompatible ty
On Oct 31, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Igor Bukanov wrote:
GCC 4.1.2 and 4.0.3 incorrectly accepts the following program:
void f();
void g()
{
return f();
}
No warning are issued on my Ubuntu Pentium-M box. Is it a known bug?
If you want one:
mrs $ gcc-4.2 -ansi -pedantic-errors t.c
t.c: In funct
On Nov 1, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
I am probably overlooking something, but if the only problematic
system
is glibc, maybe this can be fixed with a fixincludes hack?
That would be a massive hack.
Yes, fixincludes is a massive hack. Yes, it should not exist. But,
let's k
On Nov 1, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
We don't reject this TU during compiling but the assembler does. Is
this correct or should we actually reject this during compiling?
If you add any checking code, also consider:
int i asm("r1");
int j asm("r1");
On Nov 1, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
autoreconf -I ../config
In general, you will want to check the Makefile and see what it uses
to run aclocal.
In java for example, they use:
ACLOCAL_AMFLAGS = -I . -I .. -I ../config
So, in fact, I think you regenerated the file incorrectly.
On Nov 4, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Michael James wrote:
Does anyone have a suggestion?
#define SSE __attribute__((aligned (16)))
typedef float matrix_sub_t[1024] SSE;
typedef matrix_sub_t matrix_t[100];
matrix_t a, b, c;
void calc(matrix_sub_t * restrict ap,
matrix_sub_t * restrict bp,
On Nov 5, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Although I understand what is the difference between dg-do compile and
dg-do assemble, I have noticed that there are many testcases that use
either dg-compile or dg-do assemble and do nothing with the output.
Thus, I would like to know:
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Philip Coltharp wrote:
I'm trying to compile gcc v3.2.3 and I'm getting through most of it
but the make file stops showing the following error:
/bin/sh: ./../../../configure: No such file or directory
I suspect the answer is don't do:
../configure
instead, do
On Nov 6, 2006, at 6:57 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Philip Coltharp wrote:
I'm trying to compile gcc v3.2.3 and I'm getting through most of
it but the make file stops showing the following error:
/bin/sh: ./../../../configure: No such file or directory
I s
On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:10 PM, Eric Christopher wrote:
Oh and 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 compiling with GCC are all broken (so is
10.3).
I'd probably suggest at least 10.3.9 myself
My take, 10.2 and on should work. I think it is wrong to put things
into darwin.[ch] that don't work on earlier systems.
On Nov 6, 2006, at 9:30 PM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
My target (non gcc/private one) fails for long long testcases
Does it work flawlessly otherwise, if not, fix all those problems
first. After those are all fixed, then you can see if it then just
works. In particular, you will want to ensur
On Nov 7, 2006, at 1:59 AM, FX Coudert wrote:
The idea is that common.flags has a bit for every possible member
such as rec, to indicated whether it's present or not. The question
is that we sometimes need to add another struct member (like rec)
in this structure, to implement new features.
On Nov 7, 2006, at 2:13 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Like when int and long have the same range on a platform?
The answer is they are different, even when they imply the same
object
representation.
The notion of unified type nodes is closer to syntax than semantics.
I'm more than a little conf
On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Perhaps we could take a second look at this decision? The average
system
has increased in speed many times since then. (Although sometimes I
feel
like bootstrapping time has increased at an even greater pace than
chip
improvements over the
On Nov 7, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Anyway, in C++, the entire template mechanism was rife with building
up duplicates.
Oh, and as for why not having a canonical type is bad, callers to
comptypes are notorious for just beating it to death:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches
On Nov 7, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Doug Gregor wrote:
Now, how much do we worry about the fact that we won't be printing
typedef names
The only potential language gotcha I can think of is:
5 If the typedef declaration defines an unnamed class (or enum), the
first typedef-name declared by the
On Nov 7, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
I do understand the advantages of sharing them more. Perhaps some
90% solution could be made to work, with most type nodes being
unified and the problem cases (there would not be any in C++,
apparently) using the existing inefficient mechan
On Nov 9, 2006, at 6:39 AM, Mohamed Shafi wrote:
When i diff the rtl dumps for programs passing negative value with and
without frame pointer i find changes from file.greg .
And, is that change bad? We do expect changes in codegen, you didn't
say if those changes are invalid, or what was in
On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:59 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
However, this approach could have some odd side effects when there are
multiple mappings within one context. For instance, we could have
something like:
typedef int foo_t;
typedef int bar_t;
foo_t* x = strlen("oops");
x is a decl, the decl has
On Nov 8, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The way to canonicalize them is to have all equivalent types point to
a single canonical type for the equivalence set. The comparison is
one memory dereference and one pointer comparison, not the current
procedure of checking for structural equ
On Nov 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
I think in order to handle the C type system with the non-transitive
type compatibility effectively, for each type we have to pre-compute
the most general variant, even if that has no direct representative in
the current program.
The scheme you
On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:11 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
My confusion here is how can you "canonicalize" types that are
different
(meaning have different names) without messing up debug information.
If you have:
Foo xyz;
typedef int Foo;
TREE_TYPE (xyz) == int
map(int, &TREE_TYPE (xyz))
On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:00 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
On Nov 9, 2006, at 4:54 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
else if (p1->ptr_equality_suffices_for_this_type || p2-
>ptr_equality_suffices_for_this_type)
not equal
else
tree walk
For trivial things, those things that ar
On Nov 9, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 04:54:23PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
Once not equal addresses might mean equal types, you have to do a
structure walk to compare types, and you're right back were we
started.
Not quite.
Ah, you're right, thanks fo
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:09 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
I meant something very simple: for every type, there is a
TYPE_CANONICAL field. This is how you tell whether two types are
equivalent:
TYPE_CANONICAL (a) == TYPE_CANONICAL (b)
Ah, yes, that would work. Hum, so simple, why was I thinking
We're going to have to think seriously about threading the compiler.
Intel predicts 80 cores in the near future (5 years). http://
hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/26/1937237&from=rss To
use this many cores for a single compile, we have to find ways to
split the work. The best
On Nov 10, 2006, at 12:46 PM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Will use C++ help or hurt compiler parallelism? Does it really matter?
I'm not an expert, but, in the simple world I want, I want it to not
matter in the least. For the people writing most code in the
compiler, I want clear simple rules for the
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Howard Chu wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
If you compile with -O3 -combine *.c -o alias it will break.
Thanks for pointing that out. But that's not a realistic danger for
the actual application. The accessor function is always going to be
in a library compiled
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Nuno Lopes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've been thinking that it would be a good idea to extend the current
__attribute__((format,..)) to use an arbitrary user callback.
I searched the mailing list archives and I found some references to
On Nov 9, 2006, at 11:37 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
It might be that we should move the invocation of the real linker
back into gcc.c, so that collect2's job just becomes
Or move all of collect2 back into gcc.c. There isn't a reason for it
being separate any longer.
On Nov 10, 2006, at 2:19 PM, Kevin Handy wrote:
What will the multi-core compiler design do to the old processors
(extreme slowness?)
Roughly speaking, I want it to add around 1000 extra instructions per
function compiled, in other words, nothing. The compile speed will
be what the compil
On Nov 10, 2006, at 5:43 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
Can you make it run on my graphics card too?
:-) You know all the power on a bleeding edge system is in the GPU
now. People are already starting to migrate data processing for
their applications to it. Don't bet against it. In fact, we hide
On Nov 10, 2006, at 9:08 PM, Geert Bosch wrote:
I'd guess we win more by writing object files directly to disk like
virtually every other compiler on the planet.
The cost of my assembler is around 1.0% (ppc) to 1.4% (x86) overhead
as measured with -pipe -O2 on expr.c,. If it was converted,
On Nov 11, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
You probably can't, in the case of a shared library, but you
probably could for a static library.
I think I agree, though, a JIT can peer past a shared boundary as
well. A non-JIT can as well, but it has to have some mechanism to
unpeer acros
Don't post to both lists, if you want to work on the compiler, gcc is
fine, otherwise gcc-help.
On Nov 12, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Niklaus wrote:
Is there any way to specify in the code the optimization value like
(-O2 or -O3) instead of on the command line.
In Apple's branch, we've added support
On Nov 11, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Will any of the libraries in gcc now require gmp/mpfr such that
both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of gmp/mpfr must be installed? If
that is the case, will the multilib build look for both a lipo 32-
bit/64-bit combined shared library in $prefix/
On Nov 12, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I think i am having trouble with the garbage collector deleting
the memory for tree nodes that i am still using.
You must have a reference to that data from gc managed memory. If you
don't use use gc to allocate the data structures, it j
On Nov 13, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
I used the idea you showed above and it seems to work (I dont
understand enough to know why you say it wont work and thus this
email).
It is the difference between all features of gcc working, or just most
of the features working. If you w
On Nov 13, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
So are you saying that the quick hack that i did will not work for
fixing the memory problem I have but that it will probably raise
its ugly head again
No.
or just that PCH will not work?
Yes.
Are there any advantages to using PCH beside
On Nov 12, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Can anyone confirm that the libffi shared libraries are properly
built in gcc 4.2 branch (or trunk)
No, they aren't built:
The following languages will be built: c,c++,java
*** This configuration is not supported in the following subdirectories
While trying to clean, I noticed that
$ make -k -j6 clean
does:
make[5]: *** [insn-recog.o] Interrupt
make[5]: *** [s-attrtab] Interrupt
make[4]: *** [all-stage1-gcc] Interrupt
make[3]: *** [stage1-bubble] Interrupt
Reaping losing child 0x00383f20 PID 18728
make[2]: *** [all] Interrupt
Removi
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Ed S. Peschko wrote:
My concern - and I'm sure I'm not the only one so concerned - is that
if gcc goes to version 3, linux distribution maintainers will not
choose
to go with the new version, or worse, some groups will choose to
remain
at gpl2 and others will go
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:57 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
But I still cannot figure out how to regenerate *reliably*
My take, aside from the top level, you enable maintainer mode and
type make with 2.59 in your path. If it fails to work, file a bug
report. For the top level, you should ha
On Nov 16, 2006, at 7:26 AM, Alvaro Vega Garcia wrote:
I'm beginning to work on GGCC project(1) and I proposed to continue
with
DejaGNU Testsuite for these project when I was asked about better
testing framework.
The main problem is that any framework other than dejagnu is just
different, a
On Nov 14, 2006, at 3:13 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Since the problem is still there in gcc4-4.3.0-2006 and I did
not get
any answer, I tried the following:
(1) I replaced gcc/config/darwin.h by the file from
gcc4-4.3.0-20061028,
and the build was done without obvious problem.
(2)
On Nov 14, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Mike was considering simply declaring that GCC 4.3 won't work on
Mac OS 10.3.
No, not really. I'll declare that using things older than 10.3.9 are
gonna be hard, as the required cctools package was built for 10.3.9,
howev
On Nov 21, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
Make DEPTH=6, we get an 85% speedup:
Yes, this mirrors the type of speed up I expect for _some_ types of
template code. I'd love to see us go in this direction. Anyway, I
endorse this type of work.
Anyway, on to the review...
Any thought
On Nov 26, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
The textual protcol should permit to examine, but not change, the
compilation state.
Sounds like a bad idea. I agree with the debugger comment. You're
free to start up the compilation process with ptrace from your GUI
and query/dis
On Nov 6, 2006, at 7:49 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Right now after patches by the Apple folks causes you to need a
newer dwarfutils
I think that is a bug, and that bug has now been fixed. Let me know
if there is any other badness I missed (or introduced along the way).
Right now on the Powe
On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:04 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
So, here's a variant that might just work: add a flag variable
flag_check_canonical_types. When it's true, we do the complete
structural checking, verify it against the canonical types result, and
warn if they differ. (This is what we do now when
V
On Nov 27, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
As a result of C types not having a "class name for linkage
purposes", I
am finding it difficult to define a "normalised" string
Trivially, you can construct the name by composing one based upon the
structure. The is_compatible function th
[ first, this is the wrong list to ask such question, gcc-help is the
right one ]
On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:25 PM, Ulf Magnusson wrote:
How are you supposed to find the canonical name of a system (of
known type) in CPU-Vendor-OS form in the general case?
In the general case, you ask someone tha
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:56 AM, Doug Gregor wrote:
This is part three of three, containing changes to the Objective-C
(and, thus, Objective-C++) front end.
Okay for mainline?
Ok, if the base patch goes in, thanks.
On Nov 30, 2006, at 3:02 PM, Brendon Costa wrote:
Do i need to have any sort of agreement with FSF in order to submit
documentation changes?
Change a few lines, no. Add 100 lines, yes.
Should I update the latex sources for the docs or do it on the wiki?
Updating gcc/doc/*.texi is the pref
On Dec 4, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On 12/3/06, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This patch updates configure to require MPFR 2.2.1 as promised here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-12/msg00054.html
Tested on sparc-sun-solaris2.10 using mpfr-2.2.1, mpfr-2.2.0 and
an ol
On Dec 5, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Also, having the opportunity, I would like to ask you if there is any
function to use for deleting a tree
ggc_free if you _know_ it is free.
On Dec 5, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
Couldn't libgfortran just simply borrow, errr, include the glibc
version ?
No, not without asking the FSF (rms) as I think the license is
different (GPL v GPL+libgcc exception).
On Dec 6, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Come Lonfils wrote:
I'm trying to know more about how messages are send to the objects
in objective-C, how they are store,...
In which structures en how?
Where should I look in the source code of gcc to know it? I looked
in libobjc but I'm a bit lost.
I'd probabl
On Dec 14, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 15 December 2006 01:37, Josh Conner wrote:
All -
When I configure with --disable-bootstrap and build with:
CFLAGS="-g -O0"
The resultant compiler is built with the specified options.
However, if
I --enable-bootstrap, when I build w
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report.
Why it is important to not have CFLAGS influence the build product?
The standard, is for it to so influence the build product. Why is it
important for gcc to not follow the stand
On Dec 15, 2006, at 4:11 AM, Christian Joensson wrote:
So, returning to my question here. The way I see it, should the
multilibbed enabled libraries use and gmp and/or mpfr routines, then
the gmp and mpfr libraries are needed in both 32 and 64 bit variants.
Yes.
If, on the other hand, the gmp
On Dec 15, 2006, at 1:56 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
For BOOT_CFLAGS and STAGE1_CFLAGS, if we change them to be affected by
CFLAGS, we are going to run into issues where the compiler you are
building with understand an option but the bootstrapping one does not.
An example of this is building GCC wit
On Dec 19, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Maurizio Vitale wrote:
I'm tying to hunt down the cause of a bug I'm experiencing and it
all boils down to a possible misunderstanding on my part on the
semantics of the 'aligned' attribute.
Is the 'aligned' attribute supposed to work for objects allocated
on
On Dec 19, 2006, at 6:33 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 20 December 2006 02:28, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Paul Brook wrote:
Compiler can optimize it any way it wants,
as long as result is the same as unoptimized one.
We have an option for that. It's called -O0.
Pretty much all optimization will change
On Jan 4, 2007, at 8:49 AM, Gowri Kumar CH wrote:
Is this one of the things which we come to know by experience?
Yes.
Is there a way to find it out from the core/code generated?
No. You'd have to have someone tell you, or read up on a UNIX
internals book or find a good C book.
I'm wond
On Jan 4, 2007, at 2:26 AM, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
I cannot figure out how to have a vector of strings in a GTY-ed file
F_VEC_ALLOC_P(locstr,heap);
Any clues?
Do a vec of:
struct bar {
char *field;
}
and skip the field, and add the GTY markers. Should work.
In libgcc/Makefile I find:
MAKEINFO = @MAKEINFO@
and
PERL = @PERL@
Seems like they should be always substituted, if they are going to
always be in there, or, if they are never used, removed.
I tried to build java yesterday:
../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/
GnuCrypto.java: In class 'gnu.j
avax.crypto.jce.GnuCrypto$1':
../../../../../../gcc/libjava/classpath/gnu/javax/crypto/jce/
GnuCrypto.java: In method 'gnu.
javax.crypto.jce.GnuCrypto$1.run()':
../..
On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:13 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
I just wanted to guage the general feeling as to whether I'd
screwed up, and whether I should have submitted the patches in a
different way.
I don't see a trivial way that is strictly better. The problem is
that some folks don't want t
On Jan 11, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Sergei Organov wrote:
So "h1.f" is not an object? If it is not, it brings us back to the
validity of my boo() function from the initial post, for which 2
persons
(3 including me) thought it's OK:
Would be nice for you to raise the issue directly with the C
stan
On Jan 11, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
* Taking the address of a variable which has been declared register.
Hmmm. In the C frontend these are pedwarns. But the C++ frontend
doesn't have pedwarns. And maybe C++ doesn't require these warnings
anyhow, I don't know.
Just FYI...
On Jan 12, 2007, at 4:35 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
The major chunk of this reworking has been blocked from going into
mainline because GCC was in stages 2 & 3 for much of this year.
Yeah, spending large amounts of time in stage2 and 3 does have
disadvantages. I'd rather have people that hav
On Jan 12, 2007, at 12:56 AM, Olivier Hainque wrote:
Working on GCC 4 based GNAT port for AIX 5.[23], our testsuite to
evaluate GDB (6.4) debugging capabilities currently yields very
unpleasant results compared to what we obtain with a GCC 3.4 based
compiler (80+ extra failures out of 1800+ tests
On Jan 11, 2007, at 10:47 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
The description of WORKSFORME sounds closest: we don't know how to
reproduce the bug. Should that be used?
No, not generally. This should only be used if someone says, I
compile foo on platform bar and it didn't build and then someone
tries bu
On Jan 12, 2007, at 3:55 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
Can someone one with some deja-knowledge help me figure out how to run
the GCC tests on an installed compiler and without having to do a GCC
build?
You must be new around here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/1997-1998/msg0.html
On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:13 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Do the Darwin gcc developers ever intend to replicate the use of
fat binaries for FSF gcc (in gcc 4.3 perhaps) or will we always use
separate subdirectories for 32-bit and 64-bit shared libraries?
I'd be curious to hear what people might say,
On Jan 17, 2007, at 5:23 AM, Inder wrote:
void make(char* a) { *(unsigned long*)a = 0x12345678; }
stating address of the char array now starts from an unaligned
address and is acessed by the instruction
strbr3, [fp, #-26]
which gives a very wrong result
Is the compiler doing a righ
On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C++ forces compilers to reveal their semantics for built-in types
through numeric_limits<>. Every time you change the behaviour,
you also implicilty break an ABI.
No, the ABI does not document that the answer never changes between
translat
On Jan 17, 2007, at 6:46 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
(1) the ABI I was talking about is that of libstdc++
(2) numeric_limits<> cannot change from translation unit to
translation
unit, within the same program otherwise you break the ODR. I
guess
we all agree on that.
Doh! Did I
gcc doesn't build on powerpc-apple-darwin9:
/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-darwinO2/./prev-gcc/xgcc
-B/Volumes/mrs3/net/gcc-darwinO2/./p
rev-gcc/ -B/Volumes/mrs3/Packages/gcc-061208/powerpc-apple-darwin9/bin/ -c -g
-O2
-mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-Wmissing
On Jan 19, 2007, at 3:42 AM, Ferad Zyulkyarov wrote:
Is it possible to write a short example how a it could be referred the
tree of variable field?
Sure, just compile up the C code for what you want to do, run the
debugger, watch what it builds and how it builds it. If you want to
know wha
Here is an innovative new build failure, as seen on i686-apple-darwin9:
../../gcc/gcc/expmed.c:4179: warning: signed and unsigned type in
conditional expression
make[3]: *** [expmed.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [all-stage2-gcc] Error 2
he fix for that breakage in r120947,
and yet, you checked in r120995. r120947 < r120995. :-)
Top-level:
2007-01-18 Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* configure.in: Re-enable -Werror for gcc builds.
fixed it.
1 - 100 of 1036 matches
Mail list logo
