GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-27)

, and then, hopefully, a few days later, put out the final release. I'm sorry this is dragging out, but I think it's worth getting this bug fixed. FYI, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-27)

Jeffrey A Law wrote: On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:20 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: As stated earlier, the only patches I'm considering for 4.0.1 at present are wrong-code cases on primary platforms. There are several open, but the only one I consider a show-stopper is PR 22051, which Jeff Law

Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

. In particular, I often use unsigned types when the underlying quantity really is always non-negative, and I'm saddened to learn that doing that would result in inferior code.) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Do C++ signed types have modulo semantics?

Daniel Berlin wrote: On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote: Joe Buck wrote: I don't think we should give the user any such promise, and if we do give such a promise, we will never catch icc. The main problem is that we will no longer be able to optimize many loops. It's entirely

Re: stage 2 date?

this cycle, but that's always the case; we'll leave some things for the next cycle. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re:

release. Please hang in there. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.1 RC3

the coming week. I know that some of you have been frustruated by the delays, but they have been in the service of fixing critical bugs. This is a volunteer project, and some of our volunteers have a lot of things on their plates. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Zack's Farewell Message

Zack Weinberg asked me to forward this to the GCC mailing list. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304 ---BeginMessage--- I appear to have been too quick off the gun unsubscribing to the GCC mailing lists; this message bounced. Would you please forward

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC3

more limited than the Solaris 8, 9 and 10 machines. Hmph. I'm not going to worry about this too much, on the grounds that Solaris 7 is pretty old now... Thanks for the report! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC3

Ulrich Weigand wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.0.1 RC3 is now available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050702/ With luck, this will be the last 4.0.1 release candidate. Please do download tarballs from the above URL and confirm that they work OK on your systems

Re: [C++] Re: PARM_DECL of DECL_SIZE 0, but TYPE_SIZE of 96 bits

.) I'm not sure why any declaration with dependent type is ever reaching the middle end. That sounds like a problem to me, unless its purely in the context of debugging information. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: A trouble with libssp in one-tree builds

already exist. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: PARM_DECL of DECL_SIZE 0, but TYPE_SIZE of 96 bits

not be caring about DECL_SIZE on a PARM_DECL from a template. If it is, I'd like to know where. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC3

Paul Brook wrote: On Sunday 03 July 2005 19:21, Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.0.1 RC3 is now available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050702/ With luck, this will be the last 4.0.1 release candidate. Please do download tarballs from the above URL and confirm

Re: GCC 4.0.1 RC3

Kaz Kojima wrote: Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GCC 4.0.1 RC3 is now available here: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.0.1-20050702/ With luck, this will be the last 4.0.1 release candidate. Please do download tarballs from the above URL and confirm that they work OK

Re: draft release notes for 4.0.1

on powerpc64-linux 21551 ia64-unknown-linux-gnu ia64 bootstrap failed I'm virtually certainly that 21523 was not present in 4.0.0. I'm not sure about the other. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Stage 2 ends?

think you might still get your patch into 4.1, if you're lucky. Then again, there are a lot of regression in 4.[01] at this point, so the Boost folks might appreciate you fixing some of those as well. :-) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.1 Released

The release is in the gcc/gcc-4.0.1 subdirectory. As usual, a vast number of people contributed to this release -- far too many to thank by name! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: 4.1 news item

hours from now, and go ahead and update the web site. Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Returned post for [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fwd)

just missed it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: more on duplicate decls

++ front end is finished. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

-qualified than any other function type; the only thing that's cv-qualified is the type pointed to by the first argument. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: volatile semantics

is done, as I think this is at least a QoI regression. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

Giovanni Bajo wrote: Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The function type is no more cv-qualified than any other function type; the only thing that's cv-qualified is the type pointed to by the first argument. The standard does not agree with you though, see 9.3.1/3. It does indeed

Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

pointing to a METHOD_TYPE or member FUNCTION_TYPE. Such things should be replaced with the RECORD_TYPEs we presently use to represent pointers to member functions. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

turned into various manipulations of low-level as soon as it is processed. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: MEMBER_TYPE and CV qualifiers

are going to continue be used to represent pointers-to-member functions for some time. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)

, the focus is now on fixing bugs, and that's certainly what we need to do. Stage 3 is scheduled to end September 8th. I think that's going to end up slipping, unless we really start knocking down bugs, but hopefully we can get close. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791

Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the regression rate has

Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced

Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.) All done. Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.2 Projects

, but I think people might appreciate mail to the GCC mailing list when you add something. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC%204.2%20Projects for some guidelines. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Wrong ChangeLog entries

to know I'm not ignoring this email. I've not gotten to it yet, but I will soon. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:05:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: This would conflict with my proposed changes to pex-win32.c . It seems like getting '#!' functioning on mingw would be a better solution than relying on $(LN) on mingw. FWIW

Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-08-21)

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My first comment is that we had a lot of bugs targeted at 4.1.0 that should never have been so targeted. Please remember that bugs that do not effect primary or secondary targets should not have a target milestone

Re: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c: long vs int

DJ Delorie wrote: This certainly wasn't my intention, please change it to 79L. How's this? It passes both m32c and x86-64. 2005-08-23 DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] * gcc.c-torture/execute/stdarg-2.c (main): Make sure long constants have the L suffix. OK. -- Mark

Re: Searching for a branch for the see optimization.

4.2 opens? Branches are for major work and a new pass is not that major. It's also fine to create a new branch for this work. That let's other people see what you're working on. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

4.2 Project: @file support

before committing to mainline. And, as penance for posting new features in Stage 3, I'm committing to fixing some C++ bugs before bedtime. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-24 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] * include/libiberty.h (expandargv): New function

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 09:50:32PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: I've created a new 4.2 Project page for response files, which is what Microsoft calls files that contain command-line options. Conventionally, if you pass @file as an argument to a program, the file is read

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

have the same OS problem in almost every UNIX, to one degree or another. Older UNIX variants certainly had this problem in spades. But it's not a big deal to me if people don't want this for systems other than MinGW, but I think we need it for MinGW. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

. The obvious suggestion is that the user should use a real shell. However, since the user is often not invoking the compiler directly, but is instead using an IDE or some make program, that's not a practical option. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

optionally select when they want @-file behavior in an application. (Of course, we could do that for shebang handling too.) However, there's demonstrable interest in this feature for GNU/Linux as well, from the lists, and for Java on all operating systems. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

for acceptance is making @string silently accepted if string is not a file, for example, I'll happily implement that. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

Tristan Wibberley wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: However, there's demonstrable interest in this feature for GNU/Linux as well, from the lists, and for Java on all operating systems. Please don't use '@filename' on Linux, use a normal switch with an argument. The problems of '-' being used

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

the buildargv behavior that creates a non-empty argv from an empty string, but other than that it seems like we could just leverage the quoting behavior that's already there. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

concerned about differing from MSVC on these points; I'm just noting them for posterity. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: G++ question

it is pre-approved after testing. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.2 Status Report

. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-09-06)

think we need to drive the numbers lower before we branch. I know everyone's eager to start on 4.2, but I bet we can fix a lot of these bugs with relatively small amounts of effort, if we focus on those problems. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Status Report

immediately before the release. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Status Report

the details now. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Performance patches during Stage 3

, but not worth risking trouble to improve scheduling, but we're not at that point yet. If you have a particular patch in hand, and you're not comfortable deciding whether it's reasonable to include it, feel free to ask me. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-09-06)

series. Typically, Gerald has done this, but I've taken care of updating the links, with the attached patch. I'll address your other comment (re. bugzilla queries) shortly. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304 Index: index.html

Re: PATCH RFC: Proposed patch for PR c++/7874

-dependent classes. That's wort-case quadratic, and we could make it cleverer, but I'd start with that. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: PATCH RFC: Proposed patch for PR c++/7874

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's start with the simpler friend10.C. There, the operator bool() conversion operator is irrelevant, as far as I can see. However, we *should* still call the friend operator, because argument-dependent lookup is explicitly

Re: uncaught exception in g++ 3.4 and 4.0

the exception specification for the implicitly-defined bar::bar() constructor. It should allow all exceptions, since the base class constructor does. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0 branch frozen

; I'll give it a quick once-over, and then, very likely, ask you to go ahead and check it in. All as-of-yet unapproved patches require my explicit proposal between now and the actual 4.0.2 release. I will update the web page shortly to reflect current status. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL

Re: Introduction of GCC improvement work for Itanium via Gelato Federation

will be present in any back end other than the FSF back end. Competition and exchange of ideas are always a good idea, though. Indeed. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

-testresults mailing list with and contrib/test_summary. If you encounter problems, please file them in bugzilla, and add me to the CC: list. Assuming that no critical problems emerge, I'll do the final release within the next week. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Ulrich Weigand wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: It's important to test the actual tarballs, rather than CVS, to check for any packaging issues. If you can, download and build the tarballs, post test results to the gcc-testresults mailing list with and contrib/test_summary. If you encounter

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Laurent GUERBY wrote: On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 08:13 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Assuming that no critical problems emerge, I'll do the final release within the next week. Looks good on x86-linux and x86_64-linux for Ada: Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Paul Brook wrote: On Wednesday 14 September 2005 16:13, Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org arm-none-elf results look good: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00780.html Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

case is invalid, and should be rejected. But I can't figure out why. I forget the chapter-and-verse, but the point is that I is nested in X, and so to *define* its constructor (as opposed to refer to it), you have to say Xdim::I::I(). -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791

Re: PR c++/11987: why is it invalid?

see if I can find it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 Available

Eric Botcazou wrote: GCC 4.0.2 RC1 is now available from FTP mirrors of gcc.gnu.org, in the: OK on SPARC/Solaris: Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: constructors and multiple entry points

entry points. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC2

goal for 4.0.2 is to provide an upgrade path for anyone who is already using 4.0.1. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Warning C vs C++

that -Wall is a poor name. Yes, people should read docmentation, but -Wall really does suggest that it should turn on all warnings. I understand why it doesn't, and it probably can't be changed, but that doesn't make it a great name. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916

Final GCC 4.0.2 Code Freeze

As of now, the GCC 4.0 branch is completely frozen for the GCC 4.0.2 release. The release will be announced as soon as it has had time to propagate to the various FTP mirror sites. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.2 and PR 23993

can't be entirely objective about this situation, so I'd appreciate any feedback. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index: init.c === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/gcc/gcc/cp/init.c,v retrieving revision 1.429 diff -c -5 -p

Re: GCC 4.0.2 and PR 23993

Giovanni Bajo wrote: Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Release 4.0.2 without fixing this PR. (The bits are ready, sitting on my disk.) 2. Apply the patch, respin the release, and release it. 3. Apply the patch, spin RC3, and go through another testing cycle. My humble opinion

GCC 4.0.2 RC3

The GCC 4.0.2 RC3 prerelease is spinning now. If all goes well, it will be available later today. FYI, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC3

obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 RC3

Benjamin Kosnik wrote: to libstdc++ is the only obvious culprit. Benjamin, Jakub, are you investigating these failures? We need to get this resolved ASAP. I'm on it. Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.0.2 Status

++, in particular, is working for them. Any thoughts on this plan? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Status

H. J. Lu wrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:58:46AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Now that Benjamin and Eric have fixed the Solaris issues in libstdc++ (yay!), I know of no reason not to spin a release. I'm going to take a final pass through the open PRs and look for show-stoppers. Is anyone

GCC 4.0 branch open

the 4.1 branch has been created. I think the 4.0 branch is relatively stable at this point; our challenge is to get the bugs out -- and the performance into -- 4.1 so that we can start making 4.1.x releases. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304 Index: bugzilla/contrib

GCC 4.0.2 Released

The release is in the gcc/gcc-4.0.2 subdirectory. As usual, a vast number of people contributed to this release -- far too many to thank by name! -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Status (Ada)

compiler on IA32 GNU/Linux. Knowing RTH, I'm sure that he'll look into the problem. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

Ulrich Weigand wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.0.2 has been released. Results on s390(x)-ibm-linux are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01323.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01324.html Unfortunately, it is not zero-FAIL after all

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

/mt_allocator.h (__per_type_pool...true::_S_initialize_once): Always call _M_initialize_once. (__common_pool...true::_S_initialize_once): Same. and my change to C++: 2005-09-21 Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] PR c++/23993 * init.c (integral_constant_value): Use

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

one which might merit that kind of recation. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

very much apologize for the mistake. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

Mark Mitchell wrote: 1. Move the ChangeLog entries on the 4.0 branch to accurately reflect the released bits. 2. Modify Bugzilla to reset the target milestone for the three PRs in question. 3. Modify gcc_release to prevent this situation in future. These steps have now been taken

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

Eric Botcazou wrote: Agreed. But I'm requesting a caveat note about the Solaris regression here: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html#4.0.2 mentioning the workaround (g++ -pthreads) and the link: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-09/msg00984.html Done. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell

GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-10-02)

queued-up critical non-regression bug-fixes. Then we'll branch. All of the usual suspects (Berlin, Bosscher, Henderson, Hubicka, Mitchell, Novillo, etc.) have bugs with our names on them. I think we can knock quite a few these down relatively easily. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL

Re: Mainline now closed to all changes which do not fix regressions

Steven Bosscher wrote: On Monday 10 October 2005 19:35, Mark Mitchell wrote: As previously announced, here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg00093.html the mainline is now subject to the usual release-branch rules: only fixes for regressions. How does this affect gfortran, and what

Re: Speed impact of virtual inheritance

or not your hierarchy uses virtual bases. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Speed impact of virtual inheritance

. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Speed impact of virtual inheritance

Frans Englich wrote: On Monday 10 October 2005 22:29, Mark Mitchell wrote: Frans Englich wrote: Followup question: what is the increased cost of calling a non-virtual, inlined function('inline' keyword) on a virtual base? None, if the function is inlined -- and whether it is inlined

Support for init_priority in ARM EABI configurations

of the attribute. Thoughts? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Regression status improving -- keep it up!

We're down from 219 4.1 regressions yesterday to 208 today. That's much better than the 1-per-day progress rate over the last few weeks! If we can sustain that rate, we'll be looking good pretty quickly. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: A couple more subversion notes

branch facilities are a key benefit. You got us through the Bugzilla transition, and that's working well. Make it happen. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: A couple more subversion notes

not introduce last-minute feature creep. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: A couple more subversion notes

, if all we need to record is the global revision number. That would be my suggestion; just use revision number in lieu of the datestamp in the snapshot, and never mind the tag. The tag was just a way of imposing a global revision number on CVS. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Exception propagation problem on IA-64/Linux

type_info strings are local symbols. If that is not the case, then that is the bug. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: resolving backslash newline whisky tango foxtrot: a proposal

command-line options, but I agree that this is a situation in which both sides have valid points, there's legacy code around that depends on both behaviors, and having a switch makes sense. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-10-27)

. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

Re: Exception propagation problem on IA-64/Linux

._ZTIZ3foovE1S: data8 _ZTIZ3foovE1S# Found both in u.S and t.S and merged by the linker. Yes, that's wrong. I'd expect that to be a front-end bug, but if it doesn't happen on all platforms, then, maybe it's not? -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304

<    6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   >