Re: Question regarding bug 70584

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 05/20/2016 01:18 PM, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> >> (reposting in gcc@ and adding more information) >> >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi >> <andres.tirabos...@ta

Re: Question regarding bug 70584

(reposting in gcc@ and adding more information) On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: > While analysing this bug we arrived to the following code at > tree.c:145 (lvalue_kind): > > case VAR_DECL: > if (TREE_READONLY (ref) &&

Re: [PATCH] New plugin events when evaluating constexpr expressions.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: > Hi > This patch adds two plugins events when evaluated call expression and > an init or modify expression in constexpr. > The goal of this patch is to allow the plugins to analyze and or >

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/10/2015 01:10 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/11/15 09:59 +, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> On 11/06/2015 01:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> >>> On 5 November 2015 at 23:31, Daniel Gutson >> >> >>&

Re: [PATCH] Add a new option "-fmerge-bitfields" (patch / doc inside)

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 6:34 AM, Zoran Jovanovic > wrote: >> Hello, >> This is new patch version in which reported issue is fixed. >> Also, patch is rebased to the revision 216452 and some

Re: [PATCH] New flag for dumping information about constexpr function calls memoization (GCC 5.2.0)

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: > 2016-01-28 17:54 GMT-03:00 Joseph Myers : >> Any patch adding a new option needs to add documentation for it to >> invoke.texi (both substantive documentation, and

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 November 2015 at 20:52, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> Real use cases: statistics and logging. It's a (one time) callback >> reporting that something went wrong, >> but not intended to fi

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 November 2015 at 02:11, Daniel Gutson wrote: >> Since this is a nothrow new, we thought that probably the system >> might not be exceptions-friendly (such as certain embedded systems), >&

Re: [PATCH] Add configure flag for operator new (std::nothrow)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 11/03/2015 05:35 AM, Aurelio Remonda wrote: >> >> Currently, whenever operator new (std::nothrow) fails to allocate memory, >> it'll >> check if there is a new-handler function available. If there is, it'll >> call >> the

Re: [PATCH] Optional escaped commas in macros

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2015, Daniel Gutson wrote: > >> I presented the issue in the WG21 std-proposal mailing list and the general >> consensus was that I should ask WG14 first. The problem is that t

Re: [PATCH] Optional escaped commas in macros

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: Hello Joseph. > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Andres Tiraboschi wrote: > >> While we start a discussion with the C committee regarding the standarization >> of this feature, we think that this is a useful nonstandard addition

Re: [C++] Coding rule enforcement

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/15/2015 01:20 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> >> On 15/09/15 15:26, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: Jason, somme of our customers

Re: [C++] Coding rule enforcement

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/21/2015 10:01 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> >> On 21 September 2015 at 15:46, Daniel Gutson >> <daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>

Re: [libstdc++ PATCH] Add support for std::uncaught_exceptions

Hi Ville, On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilai...@gmail.com wrote: The patch is a bit large since it does the baseline_symbols regeneration and other new-version api-dance. Hence attached gzipped. Tested on Linux x86-64. 2015-04-13 Ville Voutilainen

Re: [patch] gcc fstack-protector-explicit

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote: On 03/19/14 08:06, Marcos Díaz wrote: Well, finally I have the assignment, could you please review this patch? Thanks. My first thought was that if we've marked the function with an explicit static protector attribute, then it

Re: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Richard Biener richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Jason Merrill ja...@redhat.com wrote: Applied, thanks. Sorry for the delay. It caused PR61066 on the branch. Richard. Jason It seems some tests didn't run when I tested the

Re: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

Sorry, ping for maintainer. We'd do need this for 4.8.3. Thanks, Daniel. On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com wrote: Ping for maintainer please. Thanks, Daniel. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Gutson daniel.gut

Re: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

Ping for maintainer please. Thanks, Daniel. On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: cc:ing Jason, who's the C++ maintainer. FWIW: I created http

Re: [PATCH] Add a new option -fmerge-bitfields (patch / doc inside)

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Zoran Jovanovic zoran.jovano...@imgtec.com wrote: Hello, This is new patch version. Lowering is applied only for bit-fields copy sequences that are merged. Data structure representing bit-field copy sequences is renamed and reduced in size. Optimization

Re: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Richard Sandiford rdsandif...@googlemail.com wrote: cc:ing Jason, who's the C++ maintainer. FWIW: I created http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60850 Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com writes: ping for maintainer. Could

Re: ping for maintainer - [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func

Friendly reminder of maintainer review request. Thanks, Daniel. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com wrote: Hi, please, if at ever possible, consider this patch for 4.8.3: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00026.html Thanks

ping for maintainer - [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func

Hi, please, if at ever possible, consider this patch for 4.8.3: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00026.html Thanks, Daniel. -- Daniel F. Gutson Chief Engineering Officer, SPD San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351

Re: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

ping for maintainer. Could this be considered for 4.8.3 please? Thanks, Daniel. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com wrote: I just realized I posted the patch in the wrong list. -- Forwarded message -- From: Daniel Gutson

Fwd: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9

I just realized I posted the patch in the wrong list. -- Forwarded message -- From: Daniel Gutson daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com Date: Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM Subject: [PATCH] pedantic warning behavior when casting void* to ptr-to-func, 4.8 and 4.9 To: gcc Mailing List