To my knowledge, GCC does not currently support any edit-and-continue
abilities. Is this still true? And if so, are there any plans to introduce it
at some point?
- Rick C. Hodgin
-compile as was
originally parsed, or from subsequent edit-and-continue compiles which updated
the database.
The resulting changes are passed to gdb for insertion into the running
program's memory in real-time.
On Sun Jul 18th, 2010 2:45 AM EDT Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Rick Hodgin
An idea whose time has come.
--- On Wed, 4/4/12, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> For GCC-4.8, I would like to turn on -Wall by default.
> Comments?
What are the possibilities of adding a GCC extension to allow:
switch (foo) {
case 1:
case 2:
case 3 to 8:
case 9:
default:
}
in C/C++ case statements?
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Thank you!
I'd like to find out some day exactly how much I _don't_ know. :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Sun, 4/8/12, Marek Polacek wrote:
> From: Marek Polacek
> Subject: Re: Switch statement case range
> To: "Rick Hodgin"
> Cc: "gcc"
&g
nominating Richard Stallman for the Nobel Peace
Prize (seriously)?
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Sun, 4/8/12, Oleg Endo wrote:
> From: Oleg Endo
> Subject: Re: Switch statement case range
> To: "Rick Hodgin"
> Cc: "Marek Polacek" , "gcc"
> D
I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No one responded on- or
off-list, which was both surprising and confusing.
Thanks! :-)
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
--- On Sun, 4/8/12, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> From: Rick Hodgin
>
> ...I think [GCC] is, without a doubt, the best GNU
--- On Fri, 4/13/12, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I was wondering if anyone had a response to this? No
> > one responded on- or off-list, which was both surprising
> > and confusing.
> Why? What sort of response were you expecting?
I didn't have a particular expectation (outside of just some kind
I'd like to add an inverse definition to an existing BOOL/bool type, one which
the compiler is natively aware of.
Example:
bool isSystemOpen;
I can reference this in the manner in which it's defined:
if (isSystemOpen)
if (!isSystemOpen)
However, there are times when it's more desirable to refer
> Why do you want to bother with a non-standard,
> unportable extension instead of just writing:
>
> inline bool isSystemClosed()
> { return !isSystemOpen; }
>
> Which is simple, conventional, easy to understand
> and portable.
>
> Or in C++ just define a suitable type, instead of
> needing chan
10 matches
Mail list logo
