I'm changing to something more permanent and in my control, this is just
a notice about it to make sure it goes smoothly.
Have a good weekend.
I'm going from a.teal then a big a-t sign warwick.ac.uk to alec AT
unified then mathematics dot com
Alec
I have no idea what order messages are in now because I wasn't CCed into
this (so was it before?) but it may not be much money. It depends how
long you need it for.
Presumably someone's mentioned swapspace too...
Anyway do let me know, I don't check the mailing lists as often as I'd
like and
Is this still an issue? (I missed the convo due to an overzealous spam
filter; this is the only message I have)
I often use AWS Spot instances (bidding on instances other people
previsioned but put up for auction as it's not always needed) to get
results extremely quickly without hearing a
Hi there,
In GCC 4.8.4 I have something like the following:
constexpr int x = 5;
constexpr int y = 4;
struct alignas(y) my_data_block {
char data[x];
};
And it causes some weird errors to the tune of "size of array ‘data’ is
not an integral constant-expression" in the presence of the
On 20/07/14 22:28, Andi Kleen wrote:
Paulo Matospa...@matos-sorge.com writes:
That's what I understood as well. Someone mentioned to leave the patch
level number to the distros to use which sounded like a good idea.
Sounds like a bad idea, as then there would be non unique gcc versions.
On 17/02/14 20:18, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Torvald Riegeltrie...@redhat.com wrote:
Which example do you have in mind here? Haven't we resolved all the
debated examples, or did I miss any?
Well, Paul seems to still think that the standard possibly allows
Hey,
What is jump threading? I've not heard of it before (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jump_threading is basically the description
of the compiler flag )
Alec
On 22/11/13 19:06, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
I understand what jump threading does. In theory it reduces number of
instructions
Could we change the subject for responses to this strand of the debate?
Alec
On 20/11/13 20:27, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It was said before (when this first
There's a point where this becomes change for the sake of change
perhaps we should stick with if it's not broken, make no attempt to fix
it.
Is Java's presence hurting anyone. Yes. Is GCJ's presence hurting
anyone? No.
That was phrased badly, I hate Java, but GCJ can make it produce
On 13/11/13 17:32, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/13/13 03:15, Richard Biener wrote:
You know - 'tree's were a design decision (well, just my guess - I
wasn't
around 25 years ago ...). They are a perfect match to represent an AST.
So I'd say whoever introduced that middle-end between the FEs AST
and
Hey all,
I got linked this by a friend today:
http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software/blog/post/we-are-bringing-openacc-to-the-gnu-compiler-suite--8d06289f-c4e9-44c8-801b-7a11496e7300
It seems to suggest that GCC can target Nvidia GPUs
To quote:
or OpenACC 2.0 in GCC, , and generating assembly
Who isn't compiling with -Wall and -Wextra?
I do hope Clang ('though I don't use it) doesn't make it an error
because not all functions have to return in C iirc.
Alec
On 13/11/13 16:42, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Hello,
I would like to propose the activation by default of -Wreturn-type.
The
The name David Malcolm comes to mind, I remember watching a GCC ...
bucket, tub, some sort of large container (pot?) talk on it.
He was replacing all the macros with a class with no virtuals (only one
data member, as used by the macros in effect) and so forth and using
inheritance, doesn't
If Java must go, and it must have a replacement Ada makes sense. The
issues with Go (sadly, you guys are doing superb work) do make sense.
I don't know enough about Java (the GCC front end and such) to know if
it should go, if it does go why should it be replaced?
Alec
On 09/11/13 11:55,
Hello
On 06/11/13 15:32, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, David Malcolm wrote:
Here's a followup patch which ensures that every gimple code has its own
subclass, by adding empty subclasses derived from the GSS_-based
subclasses as appropriate (I don't bother for gimple codes that
Hi!
On 02/11/13 19:22, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 11/02/2013 08:17 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 2 November 2013 18:57, Mischa Baars wrote:
*I understand, however it seems more logical to use the destination
type to **
**determine the type of the first and second operand. *
No. No it does not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FunctionMultiVersioning
Reported by kobrien on the Freenode IRC network, channel #gcc just
now, I'm just sending the message.
Alec
Hey guys,
I'm still planning to rewrite the c++ parser in GCC, right now I am still
researching, I remember a page that talked about the problems of parsing in
nested templates, and I cannot find the link!
Searching for it has yielded people asking questions about errors where
occurs.
On 01/04/13 17:41, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
I'm still planning to rewrite the c++ parser in GCC, right now I am still
researching, I remember a page that talked about the problems of parsing in
nested templates, and I
On 01/04/13 21:08, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 1 April 2013 20:43, Alec Teal wrote:
[snip]
Yes that is (was) the problem, I remember reading a document online, I cannot
recall where that looked at three ways of solving it and evaluated them, I know
of the problem but I want that guy's
On 18/03/13 18:50, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 3/18/13, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@cs.tamu.edu wrote:
I have been having discussion with Andrew about uses of anonymous
namespaces in GCC source code. I seem to remember that they used
to cause troubles when doing binary diff during bootsrap because
we
Hello all,
A friend of mine is attempting to display the type of a template
parameter (for whatever reason) and has used -fno-rtti, it makes sense
that typeid doesn't work (from typeinfo) because there is no type id.
However I must say I find it shocking there is no mechanism that GCC
Heya,
Long story short, I hit this:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12595631/debugging-with-gdb-on-a-program-with-no-optimization-but-still-there-is-no-symbo
and can't find the problem, it applies here because like the asker of
that question I am using a recent GCC build, maybe a week old?
On 21/02/13 16:32, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
How about the attached file as a start for ext/math. I used the
constexpr approach (instead of function calls) and replicated the
constants that are available in math.h in Unix.
What other constants to add?
Pi/3
ln(3)
ln(10) (for base conversions)
On 18/02/13 11:40, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
Hi All,
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options
Is there an option to initialize variables to known values in a C/C++ program?
My use case is 'debug' builds and finding use of uninitialized values
that get lucky by
I've been studying/reading gccs code, watching it compile though a debugger and
reading. Today I noticed something odd in the c++ parser's file. I saw what
appeared to be a template in a .c file.
I am on a different computer now but it was vec and occurred about 1/6th of
the way in, it should
On 13/02/13 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
It's just a filename ... we compile it with a C++ compiler.
Richard.
I feel silly now, why not use .cpp? SVN's move not good enough?
(or is it just because no one could be bothered
On 13/02/13 13:47, Diego Novillo wrote:
I feel silly now, why not use .cpp? SVN's move not good enough?
(or is it just because no one could be bothered?)
The latter. Perhaps we should start renaming the files. It will help
with this confusion and it will also be useful for tools like
On 13/02/13 16:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
I'm also thinking of re-writing the C++ parser there are some interesting
todos (using lookahead rather than try the next option) it's a topic I
enjoy and something I could (probably) do, especially given
On 13/02/13 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or a
descriptive answer).
See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
for the choice of file extension, this is really a tiny thing, but I do
On 13/02/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 16:32, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 13/02/13 16:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 15:33, Alec Teal wrote:
A few questions, what is this stage 1? (link to documentation please, or
a
descriptive answer
On 13/02/13 17:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13 February 2013 17:01, Alec Teal wrote:
On 13/02/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I read it. That's not debate, just ill-informed speculation (cpp is
the recommended extension for C++ as far as I know). We already have
C++ code in GCC
On 12/02/13 19:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
Thanks for noticing, I used auto-completing of words...
I'll fix it up and commit.
Marek
Why did this occur? I am curious.
Alec
We're getting a lot of crap ATM? Does an admin know?
Heya, yes I'm still here (Hope that's good)
I'd like to know more about the bootstrapping phases in terms of why,
how, why split it into the phases that exist, so forth but something
detailed rather than a how to with some side-notes.
Alec.
On 01/02/13 20:52, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk ha scritto:
I'd like to know more about the bootstrapping phases in terms of why,
how, why split it into the phases that exist, so forth but something
detailed rather than a how to with some side-notes.
Just in case your
What would you search for to find more on the web? I found a lot of
stack-overflow questions and guides to building GCC in my quest?
Thanks for the links!
Alec
On 01/02/13 21:16, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 08:56:43PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
If you could link
Nevermind, http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ this is amazing and linked to
from the gcc-melt link.
Thanks so much Basile! I really appreciate the reply, If you feel like
replying again any more? I'm a heavy reader :)
Alec
On 01/02/13 21:17, Alec Teal wrote:
What would you search for to find
I prefer books or large bodies of text, not notes and how Tom's I. Wiki pages
Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2013 21:27, Alec Teal wrote:
Nevermind, http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ this is amazing and linked to from
the gcc-melt link.
And linked to from the GCC
On 28/01/13 10:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28 January 2013 06:18, Alec Teal wrote:
the very
nature of just putting the word hard before a typedef is something I find
appealing
I've already explained why that's not likely to be acceptable, because
identifiers are allowed before 'typedef
or
visa-versa that would defeat the purpose. the c-style cast of int x =
(int) some_book; or whatever is not a cast (I'm saying the same thing
again, sorry) it's just telling the compiler Yes, I mean to write this
Alec
On 24/01/13 19:45, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal a.t
On 28/01/13 02:38, James Dennett wrote:
That's a cast -- an explicit request in code for a type conversion.
The fact that it's a pure compile-time operation and a no-op at
runtime has no bearing on whether it is a cast, just as we can
static_cast beween enumerators and integers today with no
I've thought of how to phrase it.
Yes n3515 does allow more than the 'hard-typedef', they do (in part) do
the same job, but the context where you'd use one and not the other is
very clear, I like clean notations, I think that's a mathematician
thing, as I am sure you know (or have touched on)
I am keeping a diary of sorts about what I think GCC is and how that
changes, how it does things, so forth.
Please keep one too!
Alec
'strong typedefs' were not done, it tries to do too much
with the type system and becomes very object like
Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 23/01/13 23:07, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 1/23/13, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2013 09:15, Alec Teal wrote:
I
On 24/01/13 14:22, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 1/24/2013 9:10 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
Alec I am eager to see what you guys think, this is a 'feature' I've
wanted for a long time and you all seem approachable rather than the
distant compiler gods I expected.
I certainly see the point of this proposal
On 24/01/13 18:45, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24 January 2013 16:21, Alec Teal wrote:
That's because this has nothing to do with objects, in the paper that was
linked (called strong typing) it implemented new types rather like
objects, using score = public int { //definitions }; for example
FYI:
Lawrence Crowl says If you want your feature in mainline gcc not I.
Also I want to be the one to do this feature, implementation.
On 24/01/13 19:49, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Lawrence Crowl cr...@googlers.com wrote:
On 1/24/13, Alec Teal a.t
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
Agreed.
I do see, however, a few areas where Clang/LLVM have gone that I do
not think GCC is currently thinking of entering: toolability (for
the lack of a better term). Clang's design follows a different path
than g++. It's not just a code
On 24/01/13 20:18, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
the mercy of the full compiler
On 24/01/13 20:16, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:11:25PM +, Alec Teal wrote:
On 24/01/13 19:55, Diego Novillo wrote:
...
I don't know enough yet but GCC seems to be partitioned, this back
and front end,
There is also a middle-end in GCC (and IMNSHO the middle-end
configure went well but I keep hitting:
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:963: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1098: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1154: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1164: error:
On 23/01/13 08:16, Alec Teal wrote:
configure went well but I keep hitting:
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:963: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1098: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1154: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line
On 23/01/13 08:19, Alec Teal wrote:
On 23/01/13 08:16, Alec Teal wrote:
configure went well but I keep hitting:
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:963: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1098: error: undefined reference to 'lexer_line'
../.././gcc/gengtype.c:1154: error
On 23/01/13 08:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23 January 2013 06:53, Alec Teal wrote:
Why not:
make an optional keyword, hard, have a meaning if before typedef, I
suggest tokenising hard as a normal token (however it is processed now why
change it? I am not sure on GCCs exact grammar for c
I've been thinking about this for a while and it can't hurt to share it
(it'd become shared eventually anyway) and someone might thing good idea:
Obviously -g makes gcc embed a lot of information in the result that is
clear already why not that bit more? Arrays will always be integer sized
(4
On 23/01/13 10:26, Richard Kenner wrote:
I think we need to come out of the documentation mindset. No amount of
conventional documentation is going to help. What we need is a training
material that included well defined assignments.
I agree. At one point, I had a large tutorial presentation.
On 23/01/13 19:05, Richard Biener wrote:
Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
I have been trying to do my stuff for a few years. We conduct a
programme called Essential Abstractions in GCC which is aimed at
taking a novice to a level from where she can do independent
experimentation with
On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
I would like to take this training program to the next level but so
long
it remains my personal baby, my funding
On 23/01/13 19:43, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 23/01/13 19:16, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Thursday 24 January 2013 12:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in
wrote:
I
On 23/01/13 19:38, Diego Novillo wrote:
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker u...@cse.iitb.ac.in wrote:
Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
newcomers particularly young students and
On 23/01/13 23:07, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 1/23/13, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2013 09:15, Alec Teal wrote:
I was fearful of using the word attribute for fear of getting it wrong?
What
is this part of the compiler called
I think attributes are handled
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As usual, it'll be done when volunteer maintainers do
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http
On 22/01/13 16:57, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:52 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 14:29, Alec Teal a.t...@warwick.ac.uk wrote:
On 22/01/13 14:20, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 12:55 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know
said that, but I never thought a mailing
list for something like GCC would be this immature.
Alec
On 22/01/13 17:24, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:12, Alec Teal wrote:
On 22/01/13 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Crap reply, it's just wishful thinking. Who says GCC has
Sorry for totally derailing this Mayuresh Kathe.
On 22/01/13 09:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 06:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for
C++11 would be added in to GCC?
Status is here: http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
As
On 22/01/13 17:40, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 17:30, Alec Teal wrote:
You totally missed the point there. Stop being Mr Defensive btw.
Stop swearing and criticising people for responses you don't like.
Bitching about the year the versions of GCC and Clang were made to try
On 22/01/13 17:47, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 22 January 2013 16:52, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
of c++11, we
On 22/01/13 18:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 01/22/2013 05:51 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
I really just wanted a serious discussion, it failed. I should clarify:
I define bitching to be pointlessly diffusing statements so nothing
gets done. Like the error thing well actually that's a myth from some
deep
Hello,
This suggestion is obviously about typdefs and discusses a *theoretical*
implementation, well a few of them. Anyway please do read this though.
I'm really sorry for the poor structure, my hands are really cold and
I'm quite tired.
I understand that this issue has been discussed A LOT
On 23/01/13 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Tuesday 22 January 2013 10:27 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to consider making the compiler easier to
understand, maybe by devoting a lot of effort into the internals
documentation. There's a lot of knowledge wrapped up in
On 23/01/13 07:48, Uday Khedker wrote:
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 01:12 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
So in all seriousness, why GCC? I suppose the volume of LLVM/Clang stuff
saying how great it is is misleading? Please link GCCs half or write a
good few pages on it please. This is serious I'd
74 matches
Mail list logo
