On Dec 14, 2005, at 9:30 AM, Olly Betts wrote:
It would be useful to at least note by the search box that it only
searches messages sent prior to May 2005.
:-( I think we should remove all traces of any search that doesn't
work. It doesn't help advanced people, and it doesn't help
beginne
On Dec 8, 2005, at 7:24 AM, Paul Martinolich wrote:
running 'make' yields the following error:
# /Users/martinol/auto_v4.0/third/gcc-4.1-20051202/configure --
disable-multilib
I suspect you'll want to file a bug for this so we don't loose track
of it.
On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Paul Brook wrote:
1) Make long double == double.
Eventually the day will come when one want something bigger, then,
you have to break abi for this. We did this on darwin, and ick,
whatta pain. I think I prefer a hard error for even mentioning long
double, as
You don't need to also send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Dec 7, 2005, at 2:54 PM, JongMin Han wrote:
1. Process :
How does new Project about target or optimization create?
Roughly speaking,
You do up the legal paper work to assign copyright,
You write the code,
then you contribute it (mai
On Dec 6, 2005, at 5:25 PM, Andreas Killaitis wrote:
Obviously I've been expressing me not very clear. I don't care for
code size (well, at least not soo much), speed is what counts, and
speed is what I get. I was just wondering why the code size has
increased with the new gcc version. An in
On Dec 6, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Andreas Killaitis wrote:
-finline-limit-10
This and wanting a small size are kinda incompatible. There might be
smaller values of n that will shrink the code, and yet still give you
the performance you seem to want.
On Dec 5, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
OBringing bit-fields into the matter is just confusing things since
you
can't have pointers to bit-fields, but anyway char is not in a
comma-separated set with signed char or unsigned char and for
DR#315 it
was proposed to say that whether ch
On Dec 5, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Do you mean using -fno-threadsafe-statics or do you have any other
inlining changes in mind?
That option mentions the word inline 0 times, while interesting and
worthwhile to test, I did mean these (from the man page):
-finline-limit=n
an
On Dec 5, 2005, at 9:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh right, what I really meant was 'char' instead of 'long'.
In fact I just took the type from the referenced article. Sorry for
that.
So am I right that the compiler should distinguish between char,
signed char
and unsigned char in the p
On Dec 4, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I have noticed that there was a significant speed regression in the
c++ code generation between gcc 3.3 and gcc 4.0.x.
Gotta wonder if changing the inlining parameters would help you.
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:40 PM, pati (sent by Nabble.com) wrote:
I am trying to compile my code using gcc 3.3.2 provided with AMD
Au1550 development CD.
Wrong forum for this question.
$(LD) -$(ENDIAN) -T test.ld -G 0 $(OBJS) -o $(NAME).elf
Don't use ld to link, use gcc to link.
On Nov 30, 2005, at 7:49 AM, Gunther Nikl wrote:
There seem to be more conversion glichtes. I retrieved gcc-2_95-branch
from the svn repository and diffed it with my CVS checkout. The diff
contained lots of differences.
Many files had different CVS $Id strings.
I was told that this is harmless
On Nov 29, 2005, at 12:27 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Ah, ok, good. I'd eject the ,previous to the filename, and reorder
slightly, but, certainly that is trivial to do.
Um, (typo?) not a filename, but a line from the file with raw
results, alternatively the baseline input. The "previous"
id
On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:55 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
My feeling is that we should have such a suite. I'd favor a micro
style, where we are measuring clock cycles (on machines that can
expose them x86/v9), [...]
A while ago I look
On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:41 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
runtime,-O1,zlib-1.1.4:minigzip,previous 0.32
Ah, ok, good. I'd eject the ,previous to the filename, and reorder
slightly, but, certainly that is trivial to do.
Can't be compared with each other
I suspect we're in agreement, though
On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:21 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
I've attached the work-in-progress so I don't have to get into
detail about what it does :-) except noting that you'll see in
gcc.sum something like:
PASS: csibe -O1 runtime zlib-1.1.4:minigzip not slower than best
PASS: csibe -O1 runtime zl
On Nov 28, 2005, at 4:38 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
we require people to run regression tests for correctness, but that
we don't really have anything equivalent for performance.
My feeling is that we should have such a suite. I'd favor a micro
style, where we are measuring clock cycles (on ma
On Nov 28, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I was, there was no where in I was saying we should break ISO standard
The effect of following Ada's rules:
While it is true that GCC is not just an Ada compiler but I think
we should
follow a sane set of rules for GNU C which might mean fol
On Nov 28, 2005, at 10:42 AM, Kean Johnston wrote:
* gcc.dg/assign-warn-3.c: Ditto.
Why in the world do you imagine this should depend on -fpic?
And here is the case that fails (-fPIC). I have no idea why those
warnings are not being ejected when compiling with -fPIC. Perhaps I
discovere
On Nov 28, 2005, at 10:55 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
It's not that simple and I suspect you know it.
Yes, this is all fine and very well, but do you realize that Andrew
wanted to break gcc behavior as mandated by the ISO standard? This
is very, very simple. The answer is no. I'm not budgi
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:12 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
I disagree. For example, there is behavior mandated by the
Standard for C, such as this, that, reasonably, I think we have
to follow. You can argue that we don't have to follow the
standard but I'm not jus
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Right, I agree, I was answering whether this can ever be done
legitimately, and the answer is really no, it is undefined in
C
It is not.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 10:08 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
So then clearly, since it means anything, we can change gcc to accept
pascal instead of C? Right? This is absurd.
Mike, you wrote "GNU C", not "ISO C". There's no spec for the former.
He said we can do anything, this is untrue. I rail against
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:29 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
BTW, I never did manage to find the patches you referred to in
your postings
from summer 2000. Googling for "mike stump volatile_ok" just kept
on finding
me the post where you were advising someone to find your patches by
searchin
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Huh? they are not carefully written at all. This is why I said what
is GNU C? Again the language is not written out so it means anything.
So then clearly, since it means anything, we can change gcc to accept
pascal instead of C? Right? Thi
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
And where is the standard for the language known as "GNU C"?
You can obtain the ISO definition for C from ISO:
61)The intent of this list is to specify those circumstances
in which an object may or may not be aliased.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
While it is true that GCC is not just an Ada compiler but I think
we should
follow a sane set of rules for GNU C which might mean following
Ada's rules
for this case.
Because GNU C doesn't have rules carefully written to make this
impossib
On Nov 28, 2005, at 9:18 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
What is GNU C if it is not well documented?
:-)
^L
Useful.
On Nov 28, 2005, at 3:13 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Possibly, but I think the more interesting observation is listed in
parenthesis: Can a volatile access ever alias a non-volatile access?
I think the answer is no, Certainly Ada has compile time rules
carefully written to make this impossible.
g
On Nov 28, 2005, at 3:00 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
Possibly, but I think the more interesting observation is listed in
parenthesis: Can a volatile access ever alias a non-volatile access?
Logic would suggest that a program is unpredictable if written in
such a
way that permits such aliases t
On Nov 23, 2005, at 10:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
I'll keep an eye on the apple branch. Will gfortran work on the
branch?
I generally like to keep Java and Fortran working on it. For moments
in time, it can have various breakages, though, they tend to be
obvious/trivial to fix. For som
On Nov 25, 2005, at 9:49 AM, Michael Garvin wrote:
I would like to jump in and start contributing,
Welcome aboard.
but I'm wondering if I need to create a designer account anywhere,
or join the project electronicly?
Things you need to do, file paper work if you want to contribute
anythin
On Nov 22, 2005, at 8:10 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
I think this is a bad idea in practice, since volatile will be used
to describe memory mapped devices, and combining can completely
mess up the access.
Only if one missed a restriction.
On Nov 22, 2005, at 7:52 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
3) A volatile load isn't moved across any store that may alias (though
I'd expect that to be volatile if there's a real risk of aliasning, so
maybe we could have another dimension in the 'may-alias' test here).
? Is this just a restatement o
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:33 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
When I arrived at Apple around 5 years ago, I was told of some recent
measurements that showed the assembler took around 5% of the time.
Yeah, it's been sped up actually.
On Nov 17, 2005, at 6:13 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
Also, please keep in mind that generating and then assembling debug
info takes a huge amount of I/O relative to code size. I'd expect
much
more than 1% saving the write-out and write-in on -g.
I'd hope that we can contribute code to elim
On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
I never like arguments which have loaded words like "lot" without
quantification. Just how long *is* spent in this step, is it really
significant?
as is 2-3% as I recall (Finder_FE C++) of total build time.
On Nov 18, 2005, at 8:24 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'd like to have a look at the C++ bits before they go in, but I'll
not
be looking to make life difficult. :-)
There was one thing I saw that was bad, as I recall, but I didn't
mention it as I thought it'd be cleaned up on the branch. And n
On Nov 14, 2005, at 11:36 PM, David Daney wrote:
Perhaps not in general, but one unstated premise of this whole
thread is that for some GCC targets (most Unix like operating
systems) you *can* count on a SIGSEGV when you dereference a null
pointer.
Unless that null pointer points to an obj
On Nov 14, 2005, at 9:14 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
Can we change it to something like
gcc (GCC) 4.1.0 20051113 (revision 106863) (experimental)
Doesn't work, unless you also have the branch name. Further, the
substitutions that svn can do, doesn't allow for the above, and they
don't want to `fi
On Nov 14, 2005, at 1:31 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
The documentation of the asm keyword does not explicitly say that a
volatile asm statement may be duplicated by the compiler, but of
course it is to be expected in some cases (inlining, for example).
However, for consistency, it might be better t
On Nov 12, 2005, at 11:43 PM, Steven Woody wrote:
how can i get see the runtime memory useage graph for my c++
program? this will
include stack memory and dynamic memory (heap). thanks.
This is an OS question, and gcc isn't an OS, so this is the wrong
place to ask. I usually use top, leaks
On Nov 12, 2005, at 5:06 PM, Romain Failliot wrote:
Is it plan to add the D language in the ones that are supported by GCC
by default?
No plans I'm aware of, but, asking the D folks would be more
productive than asking us.
On Nov 11, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I thought this was fixed by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00735.html
Thanks, I'm sure it was... (updating and rebuilding now)
Anyone else seeing:
ld64 failed: bl out of range (57687405 max is +/-16M) from
___ieee754_pow in .libs/libgcj.lax/libfdlibm.a/e_pow.o to _L4
in .libs/libgcj.7.0.0.dylib
/usr/bin/libtool: internal link edit command failed
make[5]: *** [libgcj.la] Error 1
make[5]: Leaving directory `/Volumes/m
On Nov 11, 2005, at 8:18 AM, Ioannis E. Venetis wrote:
I sent this message about a week ago, but didn't get any response.
So, I try again.
Please don't. Imagine this list is about 100x more costly than
filing a bug report, even if the bug report is wrong.
If you want to discuss what a val
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:19 PM, Jim Wilson wrote:
Pierre-Matthieu anglade wrote:
I'd like to contribute to the development of gfortran and for
that, it
appears that filling a copyright assignment form is mandatory. Can
someone tell me where to get this?
You can start with the form in
http:/
On Nov 7, 2005, at 3:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've looked at so many places that I'm thinking it won't have ways
to resolve
this problem. Then I remembered that exists this discussion list.
No, please forget everything you thought you knew about this list.
Try google, try gcc-help,
On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
bash-2.05b$ svn diff --old svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
trunk/gcc --new gcc
/usr/bin/diff -up -F'^(' -u -L gcc/.cvsignore (.../svn+ssh://
[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/trunk/gcc) (revision 0) -L
gcc/.cvsignore (.../gcc) (revis
On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:45 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
However, before coming up with a zillion suggestions about how to
make the syntax nicer, please do consider the idea that we did put
a lot of thought into the diff syntax, and that covering all the
uses and edge cases and is not easy.
Any sys
On Nov 2, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Joern RENNECKE wrote:
I tried:
bash-2.05b$ svn diff Makefile.in svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/
gcc/trunk/gcc/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But that gives me an error message:
svn: Target lists to diff may not contain both working copy paths
and URLs
This works for us:
s
On Nov 2, 2005, at 2:35 AM, Martin Reinecke wrote:
Is this a bug in my local version of "install", or could it be
interpreted as acceptable behaviour?
I'd call it a bug. Free free to recraft your environment to not
feature that install. If it were a popular install, a check for it
could
This is the wrong list for such questions. In the future, please use
gcc-help, thanks.
On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:38 PM, Eric Fisher wrote:
When I compile such c codes as following,
int a=0x,i;
int sra[32]={0x,0x,0x,0x,
0x,0x,0x,
On Nov 2, 2005, at 12:31 AM, Softish soft wrote:
I'm wondering if it's possible to build a shared library with GCC.
Yes, see the documentation. gcc-help is a more appropriate list for
all your questions.
Use google to read up on what a shared library is and how they work,
and all the oth
On Oct 30, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'm not quite sure who can approve this, but I think probably I can.
So, I'll approve it, conditional on no objections for 72 hours.
Would be nice to have a general well established policy that everyone
can follow, baring other reasons for no
On Oct 29, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
1. Apple tags should go in a subdirectory named "apple".
Hey, I already had that thought, I don't want to see all your tags in
my tags directory! :-)
Done.
2. All the old old-gcc tags should go in a subdirectory named "old-
gcc".
I'm no
On Oct 30, 2005, at 10:56 AM, Paul Thomas wrote:
I will look forward to seeing it! The reason that I asked in the
first place is the responce to trying to update from trunk:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc-svn]# svn up svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
trunk
svn: 'svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gc
On Oct 29, 2005, at 10:19 PM, Paul Thomas wrote:
if mainline/head/gcc-4_1-branch is available from the svn repository.
When created, you will be able to find it with ls, and it will be
called:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch.
I'd like to think that we should rename all such tags, like so:
On Oct 28, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
snip
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /gnu/HEAD> svn co svn+ssh://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/svn/gcc/
trunk
Enter passphrase for key '/home/dk/.ssh/id_rsa':
[ 40 minutes later, no response and still waiting ]
---
On http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnMerge
I changed:
$ svn switch svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4.0-branch
to:
$ svn switch svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-4_0-branch
:-( Took me a while to figure out what was wrong. :-(
The error message is, uhm, well, unfortunate.
If t
On Oct 27, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| // this is a continued comment \
| // but who cares, because this is a comment too
| % gcc -Wall -c foo.C
| foo.C:1:1: warning: multi-line comment
| Perhaps the thing to do is to fix -Wcomment to eliminate the noise,
| so it will be mor
On Oct 27, 2005, at 12:06 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Unfortunately, GUI programs such as TextEdit seem not to know this,
Odd, I just created a file and saved it:
mrs $ od -c -x ~/Desktop/barfoo.c
000m i k e \n w a s \n h e r e \n
6d696b650a77
On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
No, conflicting "de facto" behaviors (certainly not standards), that
cannot all be resolved. In this case, we have to worry about past
gcc behavior and behavior of foreign compilers.
Yes. I've asked, how many lines exist that rely upon this, the
On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:39 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I still am trying to figure out why this was even brought up if it
was only due to ASCII art, that seems silly.
sorry ("I find ascii line art silly"); ;-)
We could do that!
If we didn't have any customers or if we expected they wouldn't brin
On Oct 26, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
This is a case of unspecified behavior.
?
That's what we have standards for: so that compilers work the same way
for standard-conformant code.
But in this case, we are talking about the behavior when the
compiler is
given code with *unspecified
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Why did Apple revert that patch, well because there was push back from
internal developers who did not want to fix their code. Why should
this case be any difference?
I'm sorry you don't understand the differences. In one, we have
every exp
On Oct 25, 2005, at 9:28 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
Are you really saying that someone is using ASCII line art in comments
that tweaks this behavior?
Yes, I'm sorry if previous message didn't make this clear.
On Oct 25, 2005, at 9:33 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
Be interesting to see the results of a grep on a large software
base. Does anyone have ready access to, say a linux distro handy?
Of all the hits I know about, none of them were an accident.
You're forgetting something: GNU/Linux distros are built
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
but it is not portable code. That is my point.
I'm sorry, what word/phrase do you mean for code that compiles and
runs on a plethora of actual C++ implementations? Pretend I used
that word/phrase instead.
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:46 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Hint, hint it was not an accident that this was done.
I am not unaware of the history. What we are addressing is, if this
was a mistake.
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:43 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
In fact the removal of the warning for comment cases was that exact
case
so ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2001-04/msg00603.html
Curious, the backslash2.c testcase is now:
/* Test warnings for backslash-space-newline.
Source: Neil
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Does that really matter?
gcc is free to ignore users, existing code, porting problems from
other platforms and other C implementations, if we so choose. I'm
not used to writing such factors off wholesale. I tend to think a
balance is bet
On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
1) a C++ comment
But case 1 is the nasty one, as users think they can put anything
in a comment. A backslash at the end is likely to be an accident,
since just starting the next line with a // is easy enough.
Be interesting to see the results of
On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:11 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
I personally like the fact that gcc's behavior does not depend on
invisible characters
All other things being equal, this is a nice design goal. I like it
too. Should we break peoples otherwise portable code to have an
implementation defined b
On Oct 25, 2005, at 4:44 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
People depending on this is not the correct thing do any ways as
there could be another compiler besides which GCC which does this.
Let's enumerate them, what other compilers do this besides gcc?
On Oct 25, 2005, at 4:25 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
I'm having a hard time picturing source code that
a) exhibits different behavior because of this bug, and
b) is maintainable (remember, the behavior depends on the presence
of characters that are completely invisible to many tools).
Perhaps you
On Oct 25, 2005, at 3:22 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I don't think we should change it at all since it is one more thing
to break old gcc code like stuff in Linux kernel.
To get concrete, how many times does \ SP SP * NL occur in old/
current linux kernels?
On Oct 25, 2005, at 1:31 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
So, you're saying you can find this mailing list, but not the compiler
that is being discussed here?
No, he is asking if it really does work, which isn't as obvious. :-)
After that, he might be asking for a pointer to a binary to bootstrap
On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:43 PM, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
1. we want to reduce time spent in the GC,
Doesn't really help on time.
2. we know it doesn't matter for PCH, so we do it to
reduce the size of the PCH and its loading time,
No, doesn't reduce the size, nor the load time. We can only know
On Oct 25, 2005, at 12:50 AM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
Uhm, I'm not sure how to explain this without being too pedantic.
Does this
sound clearer?
This tool tracks each individual change (fine-grained) and will never
reapply an already applied change.
I think that is a high level answer, and c
On Oct 24, 2005, at 10:39 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Emacs in an xterm, from time to time.
Yeah, I knew about that one, cutting and pasting from any full screen
program running in a terminal emulator tends to be wrong. Tab
characters are usually the first causalities, along with long
line
On Oct 25, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
While looking at PR c++/24512, I have noticed that for
#pragma omp {,parallel }for loops we don't handle -fno-for-scope
Issue a sorry and don't worry about it? -fno-for-scope is for legacy
code for people that can't be bothered to spend a fe
On Oct 24, 2005, at 5:52 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
But then, copy-paste would no longer always work since spaces are
sometimes added at the end of some lines (depending on the terminal
and the context).
Please name such systems. We can then know to not use them, and can
document in the manu
On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
I have a few queries on GGC, the GCC garbage collector,
and usage of GTY markers in GCC sources. I would be grateful
if someone could take some time out to answer these.
First off, several fields are marked "skip", though the
documents seem to
On Oct 21, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
You'll also get a much faster time if you moved the apple tags into a
subdir (probably a second).
Once we're converted, I'd propose to `cleanup' all the tags. We can
svn rm the really old ones, logically group them and so on...
You must ha
On Oct 21, 2005, at 4:11 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Shantonu Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Or "getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN" (the POSIX way).
On darwin:
$ getconf _NPROCESSORS_ONLN
undefined
:-(
svn tag inspection:
mrs $ time cvs log version.c | grep apple-gcc-52
real0m3.640s
user0m0.181s
sys 0m0.037s
mrs $ time svn ls svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/tags | grep -i apple-
gcc-52
real0m5.233s
user0m0.083s
sys 0m0.061s
Is there a better/faster way of doing this?
On Oct 21, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Ivan Novick wrote:
With the sun compiler, the declared buffer is pushed onto the stack
upon
entry into function foo and not only when it goes into scope.
Yup.
Do you know if gcc will use the stack for the buffer if it never
goes into scope?
Yes, it usually wi
On Oct 20, 2005, at 2:45 AM, Arnaud Charlet wrote:
Note that I found it a real pain to have to install so much
dependency package
on my linux system, so I suspect building the whole dependency
packages under
non linux systems might be slghtly of a pain.
I'm on darwin, grabbed tarball, built
On Oct 20, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
For the curious, my goal for 1.4 is to have it under 500 meg in
size, if
at all possible.
svn edit (hard link, then have edit break the link), and making use
of union filesystems might be two easy things to do that can reclaim
lots of spa
On Oct 19, 2005, at 2:56 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
Or am I the only person to find that disk is expensive (or working
on his own hardware, maybe)?
A checkout costs US$0.50. This is around 2.6x more expensive than a
cvs checkout. Check around locally, maybe you can find `throwaways
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
What exactly are all of the new libgcc versions created when
building
the current gcc cvs on MacOS X 10.4.
They allow targeting different OS versions with one compiler, from
the doc:
@item [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The earliest version of MacOS
On Oct 8, 2005, at 5:47 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Thus, i'm going to put an updated repo on gcc.gnu.org on Monday (i was
converting it
Could I request that:
svn ls svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/export/u0/gccsvn/gccrepo/branches | grep
-i apple
output a line or two (or five) before in a test repo be
On Oct 13, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Thomas Costa wrote:
So can the existing set of warnings that -Weffc++ enables be broken
up into fine grained warnings quite easily?
Yes. M-x grep warn_ecpp in gcc/cp/*, then replace:
warning (0,
with
warning (OPT_Weffc_12,
and then arrange for
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:58 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
-Weffc++ is broken and should just die.
Or we can `modernize it' by removing those things we no longer agree
with, and document the bits of it that we don't like anymore in the
manual. Hopefully he'll release a new book with updated guidelines.
On Oct 13, 2005, at 8:57 AM, Thomas Costa wrote:
I didn't want this totally tied to -Weffc++ unless there was also a
separate switch for turning it on/off because:
We support fine grained warnings now. So, this isn't a problem.
Just be sure to mention you want a fine grained flag, and that
On Oct 12, 2005, at 5:55 PM, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
On 2005-10-12, at 04:42, Daniel Berlin wrote:
Checkouts will be about 30% slower with svn, just because it has to
write more data out to disk because of the working copy
Yes. Indeed. One suggestions comes immediately to my mind. Why
don't yo
On Oct 11, 2005, at 7:42 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
So, Mike Stump said his update times with svn from toolchain.org
were a
little slow.
Let me know if it's still slow for you.
Ok, had a chance to upgrade my svn to 1.2.3, and time from gcc.gnu.org:
$ cd gcc
$ time svn update *.c
[ l
On Oct 12, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Costa wrote:
gcc doesn't have such a warning at present.
Yup.
Is this correct?
I suspect so.
What are the chances of adding such a warning?
Zero, unless someone else wants it or you file a bug report asking
for the enhancement. Be sure to explain
On Oct 12, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Jonathan Larmour wrote:
Volker Reichelt wrote:
Btw, I get no response for
ping gcc.gnu.org
Is this intended? Or does this also need fixing?
It is intentional.
?
mrs $ ping gcc.gnu.org
PING gcc.gnu.org (209.132.176.174): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 209.132.176.1
601 - 700 of 928 matches
Mail list logo
