On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
>> +1 from me, FWIW.
> Please add some changes.html blurb.
I don't find anything in gcc-8/changes.html, so how about the
following?
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs
Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause problems for
compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new warning or
change logic for existing warnings then compilation of existing
application via gcc could throw a new warning.
As -Werror makes all warnings fatal, it make
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 11:34:51AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> +1 from me, FWIW.
> > Please add some changes.html blurb.
>
> I don't find anything in gcc-8/changes.html, so how about the
> following?
LGTM, thanks.
> RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/ht
Hello world,
this is a minimal-invasive patch to fix the case where array
specs starting with a parenthesis were not handled correctly.
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Regards
Thomas
2018-04-01 Thomas Koenig
PR fortran/85102
* array.c (strip_parens): New function.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause problems for
> compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new warning or
> change logic for existing warnings then compilation of existing
> application via gcc coul
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> LGTM, thanks.
Thanks!
I committed the following minor variation that splits the longer
sentence into two.
Gerald
Index: gcc-8/changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-8/ch
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> In general, I don't think the current GCC manual should document
> features that are no longer present in current GCC. I've previously
> done a bunch of cleanups to other parts of the manual removing such bits
> for features that were documented as
On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause problems for
> compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new warning or
> change logic for existing warnings then compilation of existing
> application via gcc coul
On Sunday 01 April 2018 14:32:26 Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause problems for
> > compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new warning or
> > change logic for existi
On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause problems for
> compiling applications in future. Once gcc introduces a new warning or
> change logic for existing warnings then compilation of existing
> application via gcc could throw a new warning.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2018, Tamar Christina wrote:
> I seem to have forgotten the patch :)
Ah, one thing I noticed is that you've used the spelling of "Arm"
as opposed to "ARM" and even changed some of the former to the
latter.
Is "Arm" now the new official spelling that we should use consistently?
gcc
On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 22:40 +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2018 14:32:26 Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could cause
> > > problems for
> > > compiling applications in futur
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Plus a wording change for the sake of consistency. OK to commit?
Yes, thank you, Eric.
Gerald
On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> Applied the attached patch to changes.html.
Thank you. I applied the follow-up below to avoid overly long
lines, use -Wsuggest-attribute=malloc (with a leading '-') and
address a grammar issue or two.
Gerald
Index: gcc-8/changes.html
===
On Sunday 01 April 2018 17:05:13 David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-04-01 at 22:40 +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 April 2018 14:32:26 Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 01, 2018 at 12:05:40PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > Command line option -Werror is dangerous as it could
Hi everybody,
Regression-tested. OK for trunk?
Not OK, since it misses
integer, parameter :: a((1+1)+1) = 1
as asked by Dominique on IRC. Good catch!
I'll look at this tomorrow.
Regards
thomas
This fixes a couple of typos, informal language (regs instead of
registers,...),... in our GCC 8 release notes.
Committed.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-8/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
Spell GCC (not gcc) and front end (instead of frontend).
Applied.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-7/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.99
diff -u -r1.99 changes.html
--- changes.html1 F
> On Mar 31, 2018, at 7:49 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> Just updating my email address and making it a little clearer which
>> is which between Will Schmidt and me. Committed.
>
> Actually you can (should) remove your entry from Write after Approva
Hi,
The xmmintrin.h and related header files make use of altivec.h to enable
vector intrinsics to be used for compatibility. However, for C++ or C11
using strict ANSI compliance, this causes a collision with the "bool"
keyword. We intend to later change altivec.h to not define these keywords
und
On 03/27/2018 03:21 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 03/27/2018 09:19 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 03/27/2018 01:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 03/27/2018 07:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
+Because a @code{pure} function can have no side-effects it does not
FWIW, I'd suggest rephrasing as:
Because a @co
21 matches
Mail list logo
