On 26 Jul 2007 15:53:09 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that when we do steer someone to a different list, we could
take more care to be polite about it than we sometimes are.
I agree. I also think we should all try harder to
On 3/9/06, Lalit Gidwani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have C/C++/Java programming skills. I have also
studied a couple of books on compiler development. I
would like to start with a project that will provide
me with the experience of having participated in a
real compiler development effort. I
On 3/5/06, Ben Chelf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right now, we're guarding access to the actual defects that we report
for a couple of reasons: (1) We think that you, as developers of gcc,
should have the chance to look at the defects we find to patch them
before random other folks get to see
On 1/30/06, Joern RENNECKE [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gimplify.c:gimplify_modify_expr_rhs tries to optimize calls to functions
which return their value in memory, if the result is assigned to a
variable, by using the address of that variable as the location where
the result is top be stored. It
On 1/18/06, Hardy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to write a symbol reader for some
gcc-generated, embedded programms. They are for a
relatifly unknown mipsX cpu. The binaries seem to be
in a.out format.
Where can I find infos how the debug-symbols are
organuzed? Is this
On 1/11/06, Perry Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a way to get some type of debugging output that tells me
what line of C code produced what lines of asm code?
Do the .loc directives in the .s files produced by gcc -S work for
you? The arguments to .loc are the file number, line
On 1/2/06, Paul Schlie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- at the most basic level, I feel like I've too often needlessly wasted
time debugging programs at one level of optimization, to only see a
different behavior needlessly expressed at a different level of
optimization (which I understand
Okay, I see. Yes, there really ought to be an easy way to provide
enough information to reproduce the tree, and $Revision$ isn't it.
On 12/20/05, Nathan Sidwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compiling the following code with g++ will report error:`static void
A::operator delete(void*)' is protected. It's correct If B is derived from
A without virtual. Why does the new B expression need to check the
delete operator's
Subversion provides an opt-in version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword. It might take a little scriptery to
get that into the form GCC wants.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.props.html#svn.advanced.props.special.keywords
On 12/19/05, Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 19, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Jim Blandy wrote:
Subversion provides an opt-in version of keyword substitution, and
provides a $Revision$ keyword.
But it doesn't do what people really want it to by design. :-(
And that would be?
On 12/5/05, Chris Lattner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, having a good representation for source-level exporting is
clearly useful. To be perfectly clear, I am not against a source-
level form, I am just saying that it should be *different* than the
one used for optimization.
Debug
On 11/27/05, Jonathan Wakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, I know it's a wiki and I can do this myself, but I only have so
much spare time and maybe the second one was added for a good reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_bold
Works for them.
Since this is a Subversion problem, and not a GCC problem, it would
probably be best to ask this question on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(I don't know the answer; I don't see anything in the FAQ or in the
book. So I think this is an excellent question to ask.)
On 11/19/05, Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
which is indeed correct. So, is there an option to tell
svn to blow away files that conflict with files in the
repository.
Subversion is reluctant to blow away users' files; this was one of the
qualities of CVS we thought we should try to
On 11/18/05, Laurent GUERBY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 11:40 +, Andrew Haley wrote:
A nightmare scenario is debugging the compiler when its behaviour
changes due to using -S. Assembly source is something that we
maintainers use more than anyone else.
If we go the
On 11/14/05, Jim Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, maybe not. My subversion check-out is screwed up, and I don't see
how to fix it. An update failed because of a bug with my external diff
program. I fixed that. I fumbled around a bit trying to find the right
svn command I need to
17 matches
Mail list logo
