On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are,
On 23.08.2010 10:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:41:40AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.08.2010 10:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
On 23.08.2010 13:45, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what
On 23.08.2010 13:21, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a
On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.08.2010 13:21, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug
Package: gcc-4.5
Version: 4.5.1-2
Severity: normal
$ cat a.c
#pragma GCC optimize(-O3)
int main(void)
{
return 0;
}
$ gcc-4.5 -o /dev/null -c -O2 -flto a.c
a.c:6:1: sorry, unimplemented: gimple bytecode streams do not support the
optimization attribute
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug
Package: gcc-4.5
Version: 4.5.1-2
Severity: important
Forwarded: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44802
This is upstream http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44802
In other words, as soon as you use visibility and commodity archives,
you can't use LTO. Which makes it worthless
2010/8/23, Pierre Habouzit madco...@madism.org:
It's just that LTO isn't that a compelling reason, it's not 100%
production ready. The plugin infrastructure is though. But you're citing
dragonegg, and last time I checked, you had to patch gcc to export one
more symbol. If you haven't applied
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
forwarded 519006 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45387
Bug #519006 [gcc-4.4] mips/ld: non-dynamic relocations refer to dynamic symbol
Changed Bug forwarded-to-address to
'http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45387' from
tag 593558 + moreinfo
thanks
On 19.08.2010 10:48, Ygrex wrote:
Package: libffi-dev
Version: 3.0.9-2
Severity: important
The test C-code is attached:
gcc-4.4 -lffi -lunistring -o test test.c
It can be compiled without libunistring as well (see notes, please):
1. comment out rows #7 and #8
2.
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
tag 593558 + moreinfo
Bug #593558 [libffi-dev] libffi-dev: ffi_call segfault: read beyond the heap,
allocated for return value
Added tag(s) moreinfo.
thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
--
593558:
Maintainer: Debian GCC Maintainers debian-gcc@lists.debian.org
Uploader: Konstantinos Margaritis konstanti...@margaritis.eu
Host: debian-ports.org
Accepted: gcc-4.4_4.4.4-2linaro+armhf_armhf.changes
Files:
gcc-4.4_4.4.4-2linaro+armhf.dsc
gcc-4.4_4.4.4-2linaro+armhf.diff.gz
Package: g++-4.4
Version: 4.4.4-9
Severity: normal
As specified in the subject line, on an UltraSPARC (sparc64), g++
generates 32-bit binaries by default while gcc generates 64-bit binaries
by default. This is not only bizarre, but it makes the traditional
instructions to link combinations of C
20 matches
Mail list logo
