On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 03:02:55PM +0400, Daniil Frolov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Following the recent introduction of more detailed CLOBBER types in GCC, a
> minor
> inconsistency has been identified in the description of
> CLOBBER_OBJECT_BEGIN:
>
> /* Beginning of object lifetime, e.g. C++ constructor
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:14:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> When we build a C++ binary module (CMI/BMI), we obviously have access to its
> source to produce diagnostics, all fine.
>
> However, when we consume that module we might also need access to the sources
> used to build
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 03:30:05PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
> > On 3 Sep 2024, at 13:59, Nathaniel Shead wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 10:14:29AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >> Hi Folks,
> >>
> >> When we build a C++ binary module (CMI/BMI), we obviously have access to
> >> its
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 10:57:19AM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> Compare a standard gcc build:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/837664.html
>
> with this one using checking=all:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2025-February/837708.html
>
> Other lan
On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 10:46:23PM +, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Gcc
wrote:
> Tobias wrote:
>
> >>Am Mi., 12. Feb. 2025 um 10:52 Uhr schrieb Frederick Virchanza Gotham:
> >> This would be an alternative to modules (seeing as how modules might
> >> become deprecated in the future).
>
> >H
On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 01:09:33PM +, vspefs via Gcc wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 4th, 2025 at 18:04, Ben Boeckel via Gcc
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 07:53:51 +, vspefs wrote:
> >
> > > By the way, what's stop us from having compiler options like
> > > `g++ -Rgcm.cache -Rsomewh
