On 7/8/23 14:37, Sidney Marshall wrote:
When I compile GCC 10.5.0 from /pub/gcc/releases/gcc-10.5.0 and run
the resulting executable I get:
$ g++ --version
g++ (Ubuntu 9.4.0-1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
Copyright (C) 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for
On 7/2/23 18:52, Dave Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 13:33:07 +0100
Sam James via Gcc wrote:
If you've taken files from Binutils BFD, please make sure you preserve
the copyright headers too.
Why? How is that important? That's all you have to say about this?
Copyright is an
On 6/11/23 02:30, André Coelho via Gcc wrote:
hello
can we compile asm source code to c source code?
It is the inverse, so possiliby is that it is already coded?
thanks in advance
andre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompiler
On 6/6/23 02:09, Dave Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 01:59:42 +0200
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
[nothing of value]
If this guy's threads are such a terrible waste of your time, how about
employing your email client's filters to ignore his posts (and mine too) and
fuck off?
Now YOU'RE
On 6/6/23 00:23, Dave Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 13:35:22 +0200
Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
[pages of bullshit deleted]
2. Are you aware that these emails are not only pretty useless, but
potentially actively counterproductive ? I'd personally expect GCC
developers, who
On 6/5/23 12:17, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
--- failure.c ---
int _clz(unsigned long long argument) {
return __builtin_clzll(argument);
}
int _ctz(unsigned long long argument) {
return __builtin_ctzll(argument);
}
--- EOF ---
GCC 13.1-m32 -mabm -mbmi -mlzcnt -O3 failure.c
On 5/12/23 19:52, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Florian Weimer:
In summary, all these seems to be good candidates for errors by default:
* int-conversion as errors (already raised separately
* -Wint-conversion for ?:
* parameter names in non-prototype function declarations
* the union wait function
On 5/12/23 15:19, Po Lu via Gcc wrote:
Jonathan Wakely writes:
It's not about popularity. If that's your takeaway then you're not
paying attention, whatever you claim about reading everything in the
thread. It's about helping people write correct code, first time,
without some of the
On 5/12/23 04:36, Po Lu via Gcc wrote:
Arsen Arsenović writes:
Indeed they should be - but warning vs. error holds significance. A
beginner is much less likely to be writing clever code that allegedly
uses these features properly than to be building new code, and simply
having made an error
On 5/12/23 08:25, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:43:32 -0400
Cc: luang...@yahoo.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
From: Eli Schwartz
On 5/11/23 2:24 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Back to the subject: the guarantees I would personally like to have is
that the current GCC development
On 5/12/23 07:57, Po Lu via Gcc wrote:
Eli Schwartz writes:
There are ***not*** thousands of Makefiles that have this issue. But if
there were, then Makefiles are very easy to update, and only have to be
updated once per project, not thousands of times. So this is fine. You
may have to update
On 5/12/23 01:58, Yair Lenga via Gcc wrote:
Hi,
I wonder if it will be possible to add support for "scoped" enum to GCC.
The current C standard has one name space for all enums, and different name
space for the members of each "struct". As a result, possible to say
struct foo { int a } ;
On 5/10/23 14:36, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 14:03:01 +0200
From: Jakub Jelinek
Cc: Jonathan Wakely , fwei...@redhat.com,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, ar...@aarsen.me
Why should this compile?
Because GCC is capable of compiling it.
That is not a good argument. GCC is
On 1/21/23 05:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:39:56 +0100
Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
From: Gabriel Ravier
- using wide APIs with Windows is generally considered to be a best
practice, even when not strictly needed (and in this case I
On 1/21/23 05:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:39:56 +0100
Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
From: Gabriel Ravier
- using wide APIs with Windows is generally considered to be a best
practice, even when not strictly needed (and in this case I
On 1/20/23 20:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:46:59 +0100
Cc: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
From: Gabriel Ravier
On 1/20/23 14:39, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
From: Björn Schäpers
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
@@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct
On 1/20/23 20:19, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:46:59 +0100
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
From: Gabriel Ravier
On 1/20/23 14:39, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
From: Björn Schäpers
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
@@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct
On 1/20/23 14:39, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
From: Björn Schäpers
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
@@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct backtrace_state *state, int descriptor,
+ (sections[i].offset - min_offset));
}
- if (!backtrace_dwarf_add
On 1/20/23 14:39, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
From: Björn Schäpers
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
@@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct backtrace_state *state, int descriptor,
+ (sections[i].offset - min_offset));
}
- if (!backtrace_dwarf_add
On 1/10/23 01:34, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
"Thomas Koenig" wrote:
On 09.01.23 12:35, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
20 superfluous instructions of the total 102 instructions!
The proper place for bug reports is https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ .
OUCH: there's NO proper place for bugs at all!
Feel free
On 7/19/22 01:09, lkcl via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:01 PM David Malcolm wrote:
Luke: you appear to me to be the one who is telling people what patches
they can and cannot apply, and it's pissing me off.
1) please don't you dare put words into my mouth that i did not state.
On 7/8/22 22:46, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
std::unique_ptr is C++11, and I'd like to use it in the gcc/analyzer
subdirectory, at least. The following patch eliminates a bunch of
"takes ownership" comments and manual "delete" invocations in favor
of simply using std::unique_ptr.
The problem
On 6/11/22 11:03, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On 6/11/22 00:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> Well, I'd argue the same reasons to remove it from C++. Don't
know how
>> useful that feature is for C++, though. I bet not much, but am
not an
>> expert in the
On 1/7/22 09:38, Martin Liška wrote:
On 1/7/22 09:30, Gary Oblock wrote:
Regarding the corporate legal gibberish. It's automatic
and not under my control also we're not supposed to
use private emails for work...
I respect that. But please respect me that I won't reply to your
emails any
On 12/4/21 00:54, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote:
David,
Thanks, I've bookmarked your advice. I do use gdb but I've always
found the macros in common use are the biggest hurdle. In addition
C++ has its own associated difficulties.
Note, in the past working on other compilers I've always tried to
On 11/26/21 16:48, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:41, Martin Uecker wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote:
Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou:
On 8/23/21 3:46 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
> Gabriel Ravier wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
> [ 2bugzilla | !2bugzilla ]
>
>>> You (and everybody else) if free to use GCC bugzilla.
>>> Everybody and me is but also free NOT to use GCC bugzilla.
>>>
>>> Stefan
>>
>> Yes,
On 8/22/21 11:22 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Gabriel Ravier wrote:
On 8/21/21 10:19 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
[...]
You should file missed optimizations into gcc bugzilla where they can be
seen any time.
You should better implement such missing optimisations your
On 8/21/21 10:19 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 09:40:16PM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
I believe your example doesn't take into account that the values can be NaN
which compares false in all situations.
That's a misbelief!
Please notice the first
On 8/13/21 8:58 PM, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Hi,
compile the following naive implementation of nextafter() for AMD64:
JFTR: ignore the aliasing casts, they don't matter here!
$ cat repro.c
double nextafter(double from, double to)
{
if (to != to)
return to;// to is NAN
On 8/5/21 11:42 AM, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Thu, Aug 05, 2021 at 09:25:02AM +0200, Stefan Kanthak wrote:
Hi,
targeting AMD64 alias x86_64 with -O3, GCC 10.2.0 generates the
following code (13 instructions using 57 bytes, plus 4 quadwords
using 32 bytes) for __builtin_trunc() when -msse4.1
On 7/25/21 7:33 PM, Dominique Pellé via Gcc wrote:
Hi
I read https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Common-Function-Attributes.html
but was left wondering: is there a way to annotate a function
to indicate that a return value is likely (or unlikely)?
For example, let's say we have this function:
On 6/11/21 9:37 PM, Markus Faehling wrote:
Hello,
I'm currently facing a problem where I cannot get both gcc and clang
warning-free simultaneously in my project. My code looks somewhat like
this:
class Test {
int a_;
void b() {};
};
This code gives me the(usually very useful)
On 6/9/21 12:11 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hi Gabriel,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:44:10 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say
that SC has indeed arguably done this [...]
some people threatened to pull away from GC
On 6/9/21 7:09 AM, Valentino Giudice via Gcc wrote:
If the Steering Committee updates the mission statement, it may appear
that the mission statement follows the decisions of the steering
committee (in place of the contrary). In that case, what would be the
purpose of a mission statement?
In
On 4/18/21 8:44 AM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:09 PM
From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
To: "NightStrike" , "Ville Voutilainen"
Cc: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate
On 4/17/21 12:11 AM, NightStrike via Gcc
On 4/15/21 8:00 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
My 0.02 Euro-Cent:
There is a minor problem with contributors being overly harsh/
borderline abusive on the mailing list. In my > 15 years with
the project, I have only had that problem with one single
person, and I have resolved that by never
On 4/9/21 1:48 PM, Pankaj Jangid wrote:
Gabriel Ravier via Gcc writes:
RMS is not indispensible because he does not contribute to GCC and
doesn't bring much to it, and otherwise takes more away from it. If
you were to remove all of Ian, Jonathan, Joseph and Nathan you would
be removing ~13
On 4/8/21 6:43 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Friday, April 09, 2021 at 3:00 AM
From: "David Brown"
To: "Jonathan Wakely" , "David Malcolm"
Cc: "GCC Development" , "Mark Wielaard"
Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF
On 07/04/2021 19:17, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On
On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
From: "Martin Jambor"
To: "Giacomo Tesio"
Cc: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hi Nathan and
On 3/12/21 7:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
Why not just make _Float16 available in C++ as a GCC extension?
There may be questions about promotions from _Float16 to wider formats for
arithmetic.
For C, there are no such promotions at the level
On 3/11/21 1:56 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 09:43, Kito Cheng via Gcc wrote:
Hi:
Would it be possible to support interchange floating point and/or
extended floating point for C++, which is introduced by ISO/IEC TS
18661-3?
I've read the note about C++ support
On 2/22/21 10:37 AM, Michael J. Baars wrote:
On Mon, 2021-02-22 at 01:29 -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 1:17 AM Michael J. Baars
wrote:
Hi,
I just wrote this little program to demonstrate a possible flaw in both malloc
and calloc.
If I allocate a the simplest memory
On 1/19/21 12:33 PM, unlvsur unlvsur via Gcc wrote:
I think __builtin_memmove_inline, __builtin_memset_inline can also get
provided.
That allows better performance for small size copies
Manual tweaking like that seems a bit ridiculous except in very narrow
situations, and just letting GCC
44 matches
Mail list logo
