On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Walter Lee w...@tilera.com wrote:
On TILE-Gx, I'm observing a degradation in inlined memcpy/memset in
gcc 4.6 and later versus gcc 4.4. Though I find the problem on
TILE-Gx, I think this is a problem for any architectures with
SLOW_UNALIGNED_ACCESS set to
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Joe Buck joe.b...@synopsys.com wrote:
Perhaps I'm missing something. While memcpy is not permitted to assume
alignment of its arguments, copy is. Otherwise, if I wrote
void copy(struct foo* f0, struct foo* f1)
{
*f0 = *f1;
}
the compiler
Richard Henderson writes:
On
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html
we have a stale link to
http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html
What's the new canonical location for this document?
Looks like CodeSourcery is being assimilated into Mentor. The parent
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 11:23:51AM -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On 8/9/2013 11:05 AM, Deng Hengyi wrote:
Hi Joel,
I have done a test, it seems that '-march=i386' does not provide
__atomic_compare_exchange_n libs. And '-march=i486' or '-march=pentium'
can find the
Some background on the below: Google has recently changed its algorithms, and
the presence of obvious spam mails pointing to a site now *lower* that site's
Google rank. So the same search engine optimization people who created the
spams for pay in the first place are now frantically trying to
(delurking)
Ian Grant writes:
In case it isn't obvious, what I am interested in is how easily we can know
the problem of infeasibly large binaries isn't an instance of this one:
http://livelogic.blogspot.com/2014/08/beware-insiduous-penetrator-my-son.html
Ah, this is commonly called
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 11:00:40AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Brian Dessent wrote:
Angelo Graziosi wrote:
./configure --prefix=${prefix_dir} \
According to the documentation you should not do this (build in the same
dir as the source.)
This is just less tested, not
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 02:54:49PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
Am I the only one who completely fails to see the point of the
spelling change? I realize that you have said you find negative
predicates confusing - I don't, but I do find changing predicates
confusing. I applaud cleaning
On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 11:54:39AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Note that I spent less time writing this patch than I did replying to
the e-mail messages on this
Michael Veksler wrote:
What do you think?
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 06:58:50PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I think that the current solution is very, very old, and heaven
knows how many others didn't work at the time on some exotic
platforms. I would suggest filing a PR and CCing Benjamin.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 03:51:57PM +0530, Anitha Boyapati wrote:
Firstly, I would say my message is somewhere completely off the topic on
either of the lists. But I dont know where to ask for help. I searched and
searched for all pointers on libelf.
The fact remains that it is off-topic.
Ben Elliston wrote:
If you build the compiler with coverage instrumentation and run the
testsuite, you might get a shock. It's not as well tested as you might
think.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:05:36AM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
If it gave anyone a shock to find out that the test suite did
On 7/26/07, Diego Novillo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
might feel lost and intimidated by the more arcane traffic at gcc and
gcc-patches. In this
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:50:13PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
2007/7/25, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
After runned it, see quickdirty.log and post here your report's
summary
On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 08:32:33PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Patch it to investigate it a little bit more.
After runned it, see quickdirty.log and post here your report's summary.
No, please do not. This is not the libelf list; use that list.
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 06:45:55PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
On 03 August 2007 18:35, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 06:24:06PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
On Friday 03 August 2007, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
Then it seems very curious that the constant folding should fail on this
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:08:04PM +0100, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 07:38 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Tristan Wibberley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've found a case which looks like it should be possible to optimise but
gcc (very recent trunk) isn't doing which
On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 12:08:48PM -0500, Ben White wrote:
From the GCC Wiki, Speedup Areas page, Strings/identifiers section:
/3. Replace identifier hash table with a better data structure (have
already tried a ternary tree, it's not faster; could try to code it even
cleverer than it
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:29:28PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
Also in Java it is possible to devirtualize calls in some situations
where only a bound on the type is known. For instance at a call site
we might know that all possible targets are derived from a class where
the virtual method is
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:11:34PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2007 at 02:29:28PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
Also in Java it is possible to devirtualize calls in some situations
where only a bound on the type is known. For instance at a call site
we might know that all possible
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 02:34:27PM -0400, Ross Ridge wrote:
Mark Mitchell
Let's assume that the recent change is what we want, i.e., that the
answer to (1) is No, these operations should not be part of the vector
extensions because they are not valid scalar extensions.
I don't think we
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:43PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33:37PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
This version of decNumber is quite different from what's currently in
GCC. The pristine version of the sources uses C++-style comments and
CRLF, so I plan to
On ons, 2007-08-29 at 16:42 -0400, Daniel Drake wrote:
#define BREAK_GCC4_2
templatetypename Op
void foo(Op op) { op(); }
class My {
public:
static void myOp() { }
void test() {
#ifdef BREAK_GCC4_2
foo(myOp);
#else
foo(My::myOp);
#endif
}
};
On
On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:25:35PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
FWIW, keeping this as much like the upstream sources as possible seems
desirable to me; I'd probably do the C++ comments and leave it at that,
just to ease future merges. But, that's just my two cents.
I suggest asking upstream to
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the
various exceptions in use so installed headers and runtime libraries can
be converted
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:54:08AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Personally, I don't see how that's a problem,
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:18:36PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves
Why? I thought GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible.
They are not; each requires that the work as a whole be licensed the same
as the individual file.
On Sep 7, 2007, at 1:53 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
[ giving operator new the malloc property ]
On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:30:33PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
It is unclear whether this is safe. Nothing in the standard AFAIK
requires the operator new be implemented in terms of malloc, and
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:51:39PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/09/2007, Peter A. Felvegi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't know if it's a bug, please clarify:
int y = reinterpret_castint(x);
rc.cpp:4: error: invalid cast from type 'int' to type 'int'
5.2.10 in the C++
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 06:28:18PM -0400, Trevis Rothwell wrote:
Would it be useful to delineate not only between ISO C features and GNU
C extensions, but also to delineate between the C89 and C99 standards?
In my day job, we, for rather unusual reasons, are using a very old
version of GCC
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 04:33:50PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 9/8/07, Chris Lattner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I understand, but allowing users to override new means that the actual
| implementation may not honor the aliasing guarantees
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 10:16:41PM +0200, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Maybe it could make sense to give the malloc attribute only to
::operator new but not to other new-s, in particular not to the
placement new?
It would be completely wrong to give the attribute to placement new,
as the
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 05:33:24AM +1200, Ross Smith wrote:
[...] If the request succeeds, the value returned shall be a nonnull
pointer value (4.10) p0 different from any previously returned value
p1, unless that value p1 was subsequently passed to an operator delete.
That's not
On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 12:24:13PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The term cannot alias is not fully defined. It could mean cannot
have the same value as any other pointer of the same type. It could
mean cannot have the same value as any other pointer, when both
pointers are cast to `void *'.
David Miller wrote:
I have a full rack of Niagara systems that proves that Sun
cares to some extent. I get early hardware access and
documentation access, plus engineers to talk to and ask
questions of.
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 06:43:35AM +0100, Andrew Walrond wrote:
With all due
On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 01:17:58PM -0500, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is that GCC will not elide calls to the
allocator. This is a subject of some controversy--even though its
probably difficult to do such optimization anyway. It's not quite clear
that
On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 09:46:35PM +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Essentially,
sprintf(dest, %d-%d-%d, a, b, c);
is transformed into:
dest += sprintf_prim_d(dest, a);
*(dest++) = '-';
dest += sprintf_prim_d(dest, b);
*(dest++) = '-';
dest += sprintf_prim_d(dest, c);
Where
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 12:12:25AM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
One simplification I don't believe we do yet, that should always be a win,
is turning: sprintf (foo, %c, bar); into:*foo = bar;
You need the null terminator: foo[0] = bar; foo[1] = 0;
But these things are rarely going to be
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 04:22:45PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
But these things are rarely going to be a huge win, and I get
the impression that competing compiler developers only do them
when they help with standard benchmarks.
Their loss. I agree with avoiding these micro opts when
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 03:00:02AM +1000, skaller wrote:
Hi, I have just run and timed a couple of tutorial examples for
openMP using gcc (GCC) 4.2.1 (Ubuntu 4.2.1-5ubuntu4) on a dual core
Athlon amd64, with OMP_NUM_THREADS set to 1 and 2, and occasionally
8 I found that 1 thread outperforms
On Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 09:48:24PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
why is hard to optimize unrolling loop, inlining code, instructions
scheduling, etc because of the SSA's presence?
There's nothing about SSA that makes any of those things harder.
In any case, the use of SSA is fairly fundamental to
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 02:20:24PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
Mark Mitchell wrote:
When I mark a PR as P1, that means This is a regression, and I think
it's embarrassing for us, as a community, to have this bug in a
release. Unfortunately, every release goes out with P1 bugs open, so
we
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 12:15:03PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 10/24/07, John Gateley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think it is undefined code. The class has no virtual functions,
and the variable argument function doesn't need to know the full size
of the struct, since it is not
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 01:37:25PM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On 10/24/07, Jack Lloyd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a reason it's not just an error, then? (As a user) I don't
see the point of something being a warning when the compiled code is
intentionally set up to crash.
Because
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 04:50:58PM -0500, John Gateley wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:37:50 -0700
Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What exactly does that mean? Do we pass it as a String or as a b?
This is the reason why non-POD through variable arguments is
undefined.
True, but
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 05:32:12PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
2007-10-18 Benjamin Kosnik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Removal of pre-ISO C++ items from include/backwards.
* include/Makefile.am (backward_headers): Remove all but
strstream,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:25:52AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
But the way that the object is passed in this case, and the stack layout,
are completely defined on any platform that obeys the cross-platform API
you will find
On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 08:17:58PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The maintenance burden argument always used to remove stuff. I've used
it myself plenty of times. Sometimes, it really is too painful. But,
sometimes -- and, again, I consider myself guilty -- we've ripped things
out under the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 11:06:43AM +1000, skaller wrote:
The compiler is expected to conform to the specified standard
and the standard libraries are an intrinsic part of the
standard, and IMHO it would be good practice to allow
'strict' conformance to an older standard, whilst still
The thread arguing about this has gone on for a while, so I think
it's time to gather some data to answer the question of just how bad
it will be if we accept the decision to move ext/hash_set and ext_hash_map
into a different directory and to deprecate them.
Any of you out there who put out
I wrote:
The thread arguing about this has gone on for a while, so I think
it's time to gather some data to answer the question of just how bad
it will be if we accept the decision to move ext/hash_set and ext_hash_map
into a different directory and to deprecate them.
Any of you out
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
Has anyone checked yet on the impact on a Debian distribution of
these proposed changes (and even for things that are checked in,
they should only be thought of as proposed at this point)?
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 08:20:02PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-26 17:51]:
Yes. I think Ubuntu is on track for 4.3 as well, most likely Debian, too.
I've been testing 4.3 on a number of architectures Debian supports and
filings bugs. There
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 10:28:35PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-10-26 11:44]:
You might want to hold off on investing the work in fixing those 550
packages, because I think it's premature to consider the header
cleanup final.
Can you estimate how
From: Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Better write your own compiler then.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 06:34:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
If this becomes the common attitude of GCC developers, you can pretty
much guarentee this will drive people to work on LLVM and other
alternative compiler
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 10:17:38PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Darryl Miles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:53:49 +
What are the issues with speculative loads ?
The conditional might be protecting whether the pointer is valid and
can be dereferenced at all.
int
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 01:32:16AM -0400, Ted Byers wrote:
--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Ted Byers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:32:43 -0400 (EDT)
On a different note, I wish I had your budget for
hardware. :-)
What budget?
These systems sit
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:15:55AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
skaller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ah, I see. So turning [strict aliasing] off isn't really all that bad
for optimisation.
It depends on the processor. For an in-order processor with a deep
pipeline (e.g., Itanium, but
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 02:30:44AM +1100, skaller wrote:
The claim was, in the context of the example given, Without strict
aliasing being enabled, the compiler can't assume that that the assignment
'p[i] = 1' won't change 'p'.
In this case I think it can. More precisely, IF the
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 12:15:17AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
The assignment is indeed of an int, but it uses a pointer. Strict
aliasing only refers to loads and stores which use pointers. The
type-based alias analysis is done on the types to which those pointers
point.
Minor nit: here
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 04:06:11AM +1100, skaller wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:49 -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
Now it appears that you want to make some kind of intermediate assumption
(semi-strict aliasing?), where pointers of different types are allowed to
alias while ints can't alias
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 05:22:01AM +1100, skaller wrote:
One way to do this in C++ is to derive the different representations that
might appear in your union from a common base class, and use placement
new to lay them out.
I don't understand. You cannot put ANY constructable types
in a
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary code directly with GCC.
If proponents can come up with good arguments about how the
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 07:48:53AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Debarshi Sanyal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any way to turn off named return value optimization
(NRVO) while compiling a C++ program with g++?
This question is not appropriate for gcc@gcc.gnu.org, which is for
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 02:36:57PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
3. The quality of code at -O0 is really terrible
That's a feature, no?
Actually it's a misfeature, in that it's worse than it needs to
be, and it's worse in ways that increase the time required to produce it
(since a larger
On Sun, Nov 11, 2007 at 11:05:43AM +0100, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Uros Bizjak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Forwarded is a short discussion with Mr. de Dinechin (forwarded with
permission), where the possibility to import crlibm as the default gcc
math library is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:52:01PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
On Nov 12, 2007, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(We may already have lost some information, though. For example, given:
i = 3;
f(i);
i = 7;
i = 2;
g(i);
we may well have lost the i = 7
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 06:41:17AM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
I wonder how to let GCC produce flat assembly, say, just like the .com
file under the DOS, without function calls and complicate executable
file headers, only instructions. How to modify the machine description
file to achieve that?
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 02:34:38PM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:21AM +0100, Emmanuel Fleury wrote:
Is there any progress in the gcc-plugin project ?
Non-technical holdups. RMS is worried that this will make it too easy
to integrate proprietary
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 04:20:49PM -0800, Li Wang wrote:
I may need explain this problem more clearly.
Yes, my earlier message directing you to gcc-help was because I thought
you didn't grasp what the compiler should do and what the linker should
do; sorry about that.
For a backend which runs
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:02:44PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
As was said before, the difficultly in people working with GCC is
primarily lack of adequate documentation. Creating a plugin interface
is certainly much more fun than writing documentation, but doesn't help
this issue nearly as
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 06:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I must admit I don't understand the upside. I've always thought of
plugins as something proprietary programs need because their source
isn't open.
On the contrary, many successful free programs have plugins.
Consider Emacs. The
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 06:15:50PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
I even don't believe that competitor proprietary compilers are much more
documented than GCC.
Depends. Vendors of compiler front ends (those sold for extension by
others) provide very good documentation, much better than
On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 09:54:25PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an invention which makes possible to brake through the barriers of
common software development.
Nothing new here: add a level of indirection (or use C++ virtual
functions), and dynamically load code. In the Ptolemy
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 12:02:31AM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
For this testcase:
void g(const unsigned char b)
{
unsigned short c = b 0xff;
}
we get:
wconversion-3.c:3: warning: conversion to 'unsigned char' from 'int'
may alter its value
wconversion-3.c:3: warning:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 06:55:00PM +0300, Dmitri Lebedinski wrote:
Hi,
can we avoid the limitation for template member functions not to be
virtual in C++, if we construct v-tables and fill in indices in them at
link time, when all member functions are known? May be it's wrong, but
now I don't
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:33:54PM -0500, Stephane Hockenhull wrote:
hi, it seem stl templates are not mangled as other classes and templates
I was wondering why and where in the g++ source code is that special case
implemented?
it seem to cause a problem with -fleading-underscore
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 02:01:30PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:40:35AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:33:54PM -0500, Stephane Hockenhull wrote:
hi, it seem stl templates are not mangled as other classes and templates
I
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 04:02:48PM -0500, Stephane Hockenhull wrote:
On Monday 26 November 2007 14:01, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:40:35AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 01:33:54PM -0500, Stephane Hockenhull wrote:
hi, it seem stl templates
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:51:18AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
$ /usr/bin/gcc-3.3 -I../../tpd-include -E -DKERNEL_26 emlib.c -o emlib.i
cc1: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 12:19:40PM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
To do anything about a bug, the developers will need a complete test
case that produces the bug. Changes to the test case that *don't*
produce a bug are not interesting.
If it is worth chasing. It is not worth chasing if
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 01:43:48AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
I'd read GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-11-27) from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00753.html
I suppose that there is not time to eliminate many bugs from
open regressions others.
Could not we to use Code coverage of the
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:04:18AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
$ svn -q co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc
$ du -s .
1044451 .
$
It's 1'069'517'824 characters made from keyboards and generators!!!
Divide by at least 2, since your svn checkout has the files, plus
a database containing
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:08:26AM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Ben Elliston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I wanted to provide some examples, but I couldn't easily
find a list of companies providing commercial support for GCC.
Shouldn't we have such a list in the
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:44:02PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:39:33PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
The more easy specification will be
int execel(const char *path, const char *arg0, char *const envp[],
... /*, (char *)0*/);
with same
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 06:27:06PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 12:17:25AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Michael Meissner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These system calls are part of the Opengroup standard for UNIX (which
Linux
adheres to), and they have been
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 03:53:04PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, that's an area that the FSF wants tight control over;
they would be especially cheesed off if we linked to a consultant's page
and the consultant also
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:03:19AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
Also the world of GCC has change considerably since the SERVICE file was
conceived.
Most people looking for support have access to an Internet search engine
that will probably yield results as good or better than could be
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:05:33AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
In my simplistic view of this problem, I've always had the idea that -O0
-g means full debugging bliss, -O1 -g means tolerable debugging
(symbols shouldn't disappear, for instance, though they do now) and -O2
-g means you can
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:41:50PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
On 07 December 2007 17:24, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
You can do a critical section mainly between processes
Thanks for your well-meaning attempt to help, but you don't understand what
we're talking about, and sending a generic list
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
1. Don't compress this repo but compact this uncompressed repo
using minimal spanning forest and deltas
2. After, compress this whole repo with LZMA (e.g. 48MiB) from 7zip
before
burning it to DVD for backup reasons or before
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 12:31:43PM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
In GPLed GCC-4.1 branch appears a notice of BSD license
gcc/config/i386/gmon-sol2.c
* Copyright (c) 1991 The Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
And why are you sending this to both gcc and gcc-help?
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 06:32:08PM -, Dave Korn wrote:
On 07 December 2007 20:52, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Perhaps we could work around this case by setting environ in the parent
before the vfork call and restoring it afterward, but we'd need kind
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 02:22:45PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 11:18:57AM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
While the standard's wording might need fixing, with every implementation
of vfork I know of, there are no threads. It's a mechanism for systems
that don't support
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 08:12:07PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
It is obvious that you misunderstood what I want, and how intrusive
the approach is.
Yes Alexandre, everyone who disagrees with you must not understand!
That's really the problem here.
None of us understand but you.
I have
On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:11:46PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Line number information has a well-defined meaning: it ought to
represent the source code line that best represents the source-code
construct that ended up implemented using that instruction.
You implicitly assume that souch a
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old
bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED. Start shooting.
I think this would be a big mistake to reuse an existing state for this.
But this is pretty much
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
On Wednesday 19 December 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:11:11AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
So I'm asking for a policy here that says when it is OK to resolve old
bug without progress as WONTFIX or SUSPENDED
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:25:19AM +, Paul Brook wrote:
Ok. I did check the GCC bugzilla help pages, and they don't mention
SUSPENDED
at all :-)
I wrote:
Patches welcome, as they say.
Never mind; see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html
for when to use SUSPENDED.
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 04:13:51PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
In the latest batch, I did notice several bugs with relatively exotic
options (e.g., -fopenmp, -ftest-coverage, and -fmudflap.)
I don't think that the first two are exotic at all. Many developers
use coverage testing extensively,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:28:22PM +0200, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like gcc 4.3 has some rather inconvenient changes in C++ FE, with the
latest trunk. Lets see with an example :
[~] cat test.cpp
#define foo bar
#define foo baz
[~] g++ -c test.cpp
test.cpp:2:1: error: foo
1 - 100 of 877 matches
Mail list logo
