uninitialized in this function
./a.out
Segmentation fault
-- Georg Bauhaus
On Sat, 2007-01-27 at 02:47 +0100, Andreas Bogk wrote:
I'm exactly talking about the semantics of undefined here. It would
be immensely reassuring if a compiler would at least interpret this as
unspecified, but consistent. Even better would be a defined and
documented semantics for
Arnaud Charlet wrote:
As for building GNAT, you do need the same environment to
run make check-ada, meaning an existing Ada compiler in your PATH
to support the infrastructure of make check (this compiler is not tested
by make check-ada, only used by the infrastructure).
Thanks.
May I suggest
Running make check stops in the Ada ACATS part,
where it doesn't find the newly created binaries
after a successful make bootstrap. (And after turning
the computer off, going to sleep, turning it on and
*not* again adding the different GNAT installation to
PATH that was used for bootstrapping.)
I
Dave Korn wrote:
You can have both, correctness and uninitialised local
variables. For an impression of the difference in performance,
and for a way to ensure correctness, I tried this
(switch register/volatile in the declaration lines in comp
and r to see the effects).
I didn't get
Paul Schlie wrote:
From: Georg Bauhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul Schlie wrote:
From: Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this would mean you could not put local variables in
registers. the effect on code quality woul be awful!
Why would anyone care about
Georg Bauhaus wrote:
(There are at least two bugs in this :-/ but corrections
won't change the picture. Neither will initialisation.)
#define BUFFER_SIZE 1000 // must be 0
#define ITERATIONS 10 // must be 0
assert(hi 0);
for (size_t c=0; c hi + 2; ++c) {
if (a[c]) {
Joe Buck wrote:
32-bit integers are going to remain useful types, and
LP64 architectures finally have char = 8, short = 16, int = 32, long = 64,
which is too useful to break.
Hmm... pratically,
Handle and Pointer Sizes in
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Robert Dewar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| But the whole idea of hardware semantics is bogus, since you are
| assuming some connection between C and the hardware which does not
| exist. C is not an assembly language.
If you live in a
Paul Schlie wrote:
- How is it necessary or desirable to define that the result is undefined
vs. being target defined?
What does C say about how a target performs an instruction?
And why shouldn't GCC take advantage of this?
Daniel Kegel wrote:
So, I'm looking around for other reports of performance
regressions in gcc-4.0.
I came across this one:
int foo(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
int bar()
{
int x = 0, y = 10;
int c;
for (c=0; c 123123123 x -1; ++c, --y)
x
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
Sorry, but sin and cos are mathematical functions.
The mathematical functions sin and cos are mathematical
functions in mathematics but almost never in GCC's world,
almost never in the mathematical sense:
They can almost never be computed by programs translated using
Bernhard R. Link wrote:
naming any range smaller than some [-50pi,100pi] valid could
really make me crazy...
No one is asking for sine to be restricted in this way.
Some are asking for the freedom to request this or that
kind of sine computation to be generated, because they know
that for
Marc Espie wrote:
Sorry for chiming in after all this time, but I can't let this pass.
Scott, where on earth did you pick up your trig books ?
Sorry, too, but why one earth do modern time mathematics scholars
think that sine and cosine are bound to have to do with an equally
modern notion of
Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On May 16, 2005, Georg Bauhaus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- cd ada/doctools gnatmake -q xgnatugn
+ cd ada/doctools gnatmake -q --GCC=$(CC) xgnatugn -largs --GCC=$(CC)
Don't you need quotes around $(CC),
Yes, there should be quotes.
(Without them the change
Peter Barada wrote:
Until package maintainers take cross-compilation *seriously*,
Or cross-programming in general,
or until GNU programmers write software in a way such that if
the GNU platform changes, translation of configuration tools is
still possible by design.
I've just given up running the
Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 3.4.4 RC2 is now available here:
Please download, build, and test.
On Mac OX X 10.2, the results are slightly discomforting,
even though I do get a compiler with
--enable-languages=c,ada,f77,c++,objc.
gcc summary has
# of unexpected failures1080
(Couldn't get any
Bernard Leak wrote:
[in reply to why by default an MTA should be installed
in order to be able to send reports in the usual way]
Special system restrictions may make it
impracticable to install the expected tools, but this is really
a red herring.
Hmm...
Installing an MTA, whatever its size may
Zack Weinberg wrote:
All modern MTAs can be configured, quite easily, in a
'dumb client' mode where they accept mail only from the local host --
Well, easily is arguable if you aren't a Unix sysadmin, and
depending on the MTA...
There are even programs, such as sSMTP
which, not a month ago had
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#*-*-solaris2* by setting
Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page
to the anchor. I'm not sure
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc.
Okay. However,...
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
If *-*-solaris2* should appear as/in the name attribute of an a,
prepending a name start
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#*-*-solaris2* by setting
Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page
to the anchor. I'm not sure
Mark Mitchell wrote:
The first GCC 4.0 candidate is available from:
...
a minor issue with the configure script:
...
checking whether gcc-3.4 accepts -g... yes
checking for gnatbind... gnatbind
--- here ---
checking whether compiler driver understands Ada...
../src/gcc-4.0.0-20050410/configure:
Robert Dewar wrote:
A little note is that Ada has a pragma Opimize that would make
use of this feature (it's currently pretty much ignored).
Though what GCC does for a compilation unit with Ada's pragma
Optimize(Off); inside it is close to what some users seem to be wanting
in C.
GCC does complain
Joe Buck wrote:
Are you using volatile correctly? There are situations where volatile
alone does not suffice and you need more locking, but the Linux and BSD
kernel folks manage to optimize their device driver code.
We have just been discussing a similar topic in a de.* newsgroup.
A busy-loop
25 matches
Mail list logo
