Re: Using DejaGNU on GCC's Testsuite

2012-08-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20/08/2012, PARAT Didier didier.pa...@fr.thalesgroup.com wrote: Hi, I am using DejaGNU on GCC's Testsuite and a problem appeared to me, some tests fail when they shouldn't be. For example: The test gcc.dg/pr27528.c has the line /* { dg-options } */ which means that this test should be

Re: at exit alternative for AIX

2012-08-21 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21 August 2012 00:55, Perry Smith wrote: I have added __cxa_atexit and __cxa_finalize in the libstdc++ library instead of the libgcc library because it is only used by g++ and not gcc. That doesn't sound right, not all C++ programs link to libstdc++ and not all C++ programs are compiled

Re: Using DejaGNU on GCC's Testsuite

2012-08-21 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21 August 2012 09:20, PARAT Didier wrote: Thanks, but how come nobody noticed that some of these tests (gcc.dg/pr27528.c and some others) needed the line { dg-options -O0 } instead of { dg-options } ? Probably because they're not failing for most people, see e.g.

Re: GCC with Solaris -- using std::locale crashes

2012-08-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26 August 2012 00:29, JonathonS wrote: Hi, I am currently using GCC 4.4.4 on my Solaris machine and I am having a difficult time getting it to compile with locale-support. Your question is not appropriate for this mailing list, which is about development of GCC. For help using GCC please

Re: Size difference in base class between GCC releases

2012-08-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27 August 2012 19:48, Paul_Koningwrote: I'm doing some checking of data structure layouts in different releases of our code -- which were produced by different releases of GCC (3.3.3 vs. 4.5.4). One difference I'm seeing that is puzzling is in the handling of base classes.

Re: Size difference in base class between GCC releases

2012-08-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27 August 2012 20:49 Paul Koning wrote: On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:33 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 27 August 2012 19:48, Paul_Koningwrote: I'm doing some checking of data structure layouts in different releases of our code -- which were produced by different releases of GCC (3.3.3 vs

Re: Size difference in base class between GCC releases

2012-08-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27 August 2012 21:16, Paul Koning wrote: On Aug 27, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: Is this message http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/msg00874.html relevant to your case? -- Gaby Yes, that looks like the exact case. And the mail thread seems to say that the

Re: cxx-conversion a good idea?

2012-08-30 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 30 August 2012 13:43, Nikos Fotoulis wrote: Hi. The cxx-conversion idea does not come without its cons. The most important for us is that there will not be a plain gcc-core package that is smaller, The GCC project doesn't make gcc-core tarballs any more anyway. Third-party packagers are

Re: When did 4.8 fork and where was it forked from ?

2012-09-30 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 30 September 2012 17:26, Aaron Gray wrote: Hi, I am trying to find out when 4.8 forked and where it actually forked from ? It didn't, there is no 4.8 branch yet. This information does not seem immediately available. See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline for release branches that

Re: When did 4.8 fork and where was it forked from ?

2012-09-30 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 30 September 2012 17:30, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 30 September 2012 17:26, Aaron Gray wrote: Hi, I am trying to find out when 4.8 forked and where it actually forked from ? It didn't, there is no 4.8 branch yet. This information does not seem immediately available. See http

Re: Proposing switch -fsmart-pointers

2012-10-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Oct 5, 2012 5:09 PM, _ neura...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Guys By proposing switch I think no c++ standard is threatened. We allready have switch for unsigned char etc. Looking at most of effort being pushed to STL and all kinds of smart-pointer templates to produce more resilient code. I

Re: Proposing switch -fsmart-pointers

2012-10-07 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Oct 7, 2012 1:05 AM, _ neura...@gmail.com wrote: And as optional switch it's harmless to rest of gcc. This is not true. Every option adds a maintenance burden. It must be tested and its interaction with other features must be considered, making it harder to make future changes if they

Re: Broken Math Resource Link on Your Site - Follow-up

2012-10-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Oct 10, 2012 7:10 PM, Alexandra Sawyer wrote: Hi Administrator, I wanted to follow up with you and make sure you had received my email I sent a little bit ago regarding the broken link on your site. If you are still updating your website, I have a similar resource that you can replace

Re: Broken Math Resource Link on Your Site - Follow-up

2012-10-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 October 2012 21:03, Florian Weimer wrote: * Jonathan Wakely: The link you referred to is in an archived email sent to a GCC mailing list. The contents of mails sent to the list are not really the responsibility of the GCC project and editing archived posts to fix broken links

Re: macro's and local variables

2012-10-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 October 2012 22:43, Mischa Baars wrote: Hi All, Who can take a first look at this in the morning? Hi, I looked, they seem to be some files. Nice. If you want people to look at them properly you should probably send them to the gcc-help list and explain why you want people to look at

Re: bounds checking in STL containers

2012-10-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 15 October 2012 18:14, Ахриев Альберт wrote: Hi All, It appears that operator[] in STL containers (e.g. vector, deque) does not check bounds any more (g++ 4.7.2). If you want to discuss the C++ library then you should mail the libstd...@gcc.gnu.org list. Two-three generations ago g++

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

2012-10-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11 May 2011 15:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Can we increase the size of the text at the top of the Enter Bug page? Before reporting a bug, please read the bug writing guidelines, please look at the list of most frequently reported bugs, and please search for the bug. It's not very

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

2012-10-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 October 2012 13:16, Frédéric Buclin wrote: Le 18. 10. 12 14:06, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : Other bugzillas I've used have a big red text box that very prominently tells the submitted to search for existing bugs. Do you have an example of such Bugzillas? Mozilla and RedHat have

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

2012-10-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 October 2012 13:32, Frédéric Buclin wrote: Le 18. 10. 12 14:27, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : I'll prepare some mockups for people to look at and see if they like it. Please file a bug and CC me. It's much easier to track progress in Bugzilla than per email. OK, thanks, it's now PR 54973

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

2012-10-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 October 2012 13:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 18 October 2012 13:32, Frédéric Buclin wrote: Le 18. 10. 12 14:27, Jonathan Wakely a écrit : I'll prepare some mockups for people to look at and see if they like it. Please file a bug and CC me. It's much easier to track progress

Re: Bugzilla new bug page

2012-10-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 October 2012 23:08, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: As you are improving the bug reporting documentation: I'm not changing the documentation. I'm just trying to make some existing text harder to ignore. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ does not explain how to report a bug that only occurs with LTO,

Re: AIX trunk build fail #3

2012-10-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote: This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH feature. Thus, something has changed in the build process of gcc to include LD_LIBRARY_PATH

Re: AIX trunk build fail #3

2012-10-25 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote: On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote: This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same

Re: Regression/bug in 4.7 regarding typedef in templated class

2012-10-27 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 27 October 2012 13:55, Peter A. Felvegi wrote: I didn't find anything relevant in Bugzilla when searching for 'typedef template'. Should I file a bug report? If you've found what you think is a bug and you can't find an existing Bugzilla report then yes, you should file a bug report. This

Re: AIX trunk build fail #3

2012-10-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28 October 2012 13:39, Perry Smith wrote: I opened this bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105

Re: bug report : -save-temps and stdin

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29 October 2012 09:25, Mike Dupont wrote: Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ? something with the timestamp as well. I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable? Why not just write the source to the temp file then invoke GCC on it?

Re: bug report : -save-temps and stdin

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29 October 2012 10:19, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 29 October 2012 09:25, Mike Dupont wrote: Well in this case, what about a random temp file name? tmpfile ? something with the timestamp as well. I would like to have those files if possible. would that be acceptable? Why not just write

Re: add .cc files to libgcc.a

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, Perry Smith wrote: My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc. That doesn't make sense. Both gcc and g++ are just driver programs that invoke the appropriate compiler program, which

Re: add .cc files to libgcc.a

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29 October 2012 16:08, Perry Smith wrote: On Oct 29, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Oct 29, 2012 1:54 PM, Perry Smith wrote: My original logic in adding them to libstdc++.a is they are only used (called) by code automatically produced by g++ and not gcc. That doesn't make

Re: add .cc files to libgcc.a

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 29 October 2012 23:44, Perry Smith wrote: On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Compiling with gcc does not imply you're not compiling C++. So, in my sample code, how do you compile it with gcc? Put it in a file that ends with .cc or .cpp or .C or .cxx or any of the other

Re: add .cc files to libgcc.a

2012-10-29 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 30 October 2012 00:30, Perry Smith wrote: On Oct 29, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: It compiles fine with gcc if you put it in a file that ends in .cc or .C or .cpp or any of the other extensions that tell gcc to run the cc1plus compiler. Please read http://gcc.gnu.org

Re: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon

2012-10-31 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 31 October 2012 10:25, JonY wrote: On 10/30/2012 01:56, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Status == I'd like to close the stage 1 phase of GCC 4.8 development on Monday, November 5th. If you have still patches for new features you'd like to see in GCC 4.8, please post them for review soon.

Re: calculation of pi

2012-11-05 Thread Jonathan Wakely
I think this thread belongs on the gcc-help list, not here.

Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

2012-11-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote: On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote: I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to major user-visible changes. It wasn't for GCC 4.0, but I'm not suggesting it should be done again. The new C++ parser and ABI in GCC 3.4

Re: Question about aliases

2012-11-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 November 2012 09:23, Alex Markin wrote: Also, according to the issue 6.5 (7), we cat access to an object value with expression that has a qualified version of a type compatible with the effective type of the object So, `const int *' can legally point to the `int *' but not in reverse

Re: Checking in on a Broken Math Resource Link on Your Site

2012-11-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11/07/12 21:20, Alexandra Sawyer wrote: I've reported a broken link on your site gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/1999-q3n/msg00261.html that links to http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/math-faq.html and haven't heard back, so I just wanted to verify whether you're the right person to

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 November 2012 20:51, Dennis Clarke wrote: So 32-bit gcc works just fine. However I need a pile of libs all over the place ( gmp, mpfr, mpc, etc etc ) for this to work No you don't. If you put gmp, mpfr and mpc in the GCC source tree, or install them with --disable-shared, then you

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 November 2012 22:08, Ryan Johnson wrote: You know, somehow I'd missed that gcc would build the numerical libs for you if they were in tree... I'd only heard about the host tools (binutils, etc.). Does it do the same for all deps (e.g. readline) as well? No. The

Re: the struggle to create a 64-bit gcc on Solaris 10

2012-11-11 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11 November 2012 21:57, Dennis Clarke wrote: Here is what I did with gmp : $ ls $SRC/gmp* /usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.bz2 $ /opt/schily/bin/star -x -bz -xdir -xdot -U -fs=16m file=/usr/local/src/gmp-5.0.5.tar.bz2 star: 1262 blocks + 0 bytes (total of 12922880 bytes = 12620.00k). $ mv

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

2012-11-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 November 2012 18:03, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: Regarding PCH [pre-compiled header], I think that it is related to PPH [pre-processed headers] I don't understand yet if PPH is abandoned, or just post-poned. I was believing it was a very mature experimental branch. See

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

2012-11-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 November 2012 18:25, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:06:08AM -1000, NightStrike wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote: I really think that GCC need some form of garbage collector. [...] What's wrong with

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

2012-11-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 19 November 2012 19:35, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 06:37:29PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 18 November 2012 18:25, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 08:06:08AM -1000, NightStrike wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch

Re: RFC - Alternatives to gengtype

2012-11-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 23/11/2012, Basile Starynkevitch bas...@starynkevitch.net wrote: On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:29:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: On 11/18/2012 07:06 PM, NightStrike wrote: What's wrong with std::shared_ptr? The pointer needs two words, and the per-object overhead for the reference counts

Re: Could we start accepting rich-text postings on the gcc lists?

2012-11-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 24 November 2012 00:40, Nathan Ridge wrote: I am regular reader of several mailing lists, some of which (such as this one) require plain text, and some (like cdt-dev) which allow rich text. My experience has been that the formatting of messages on plain-text lists is consistent across the

Re: Could we start accepting rich-text postings on the gcc lists?

2012-11-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 24 November 2012 17:47, Robert Dewar wrote: 2) The fact that Android refuses to provide a non-HTML e-mail capability is ridiculous but does not seem to me to be a reason for us to change our policy. Surely there are altenrative email client for Android that have plain text capability???

Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8

2012-11-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote: What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see any of those in the C++ standard working paper: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf It's far too early for anything to have been voted into

Re: libstdc++-v3 without exception/exception segments

2012-11-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
This message is inappropirate on this list, which is for discussing development of GCC. For help using or building GCC please use the gcc-help list instead. Please take any follow up to that list, thanks. On 28 November 2012 15:19, Martin Laabs wrote: Hello, I currenty build an arm-elf cross

Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8

2012-11-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28 November 2012 09:03, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 28 November 2012 07:36, Xinliang David Li wrote: What you described is the 'transitional model' right? but I don't see any of those in the C++ standard working paper: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3347.pdf It's

Re: RFC - Remove support for PCH post 4.8

2012-11-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 28 November 2012 20:16, Toon Moene wrote: On 11/28/2012 02:53 PM, Diego Novillo wrote: Is it permissable to ask a meta-question here ? What's so horrible about the definition of header files that something like this is necessary ? In Fortran we have modules. Certainly, the efficient

Re: Stale C++ ABI link

2012-12-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 14 December 2012 21:51, Joe Buck wrote: 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

Re: Stale C++ ABI link

2012-12-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 14 December 2012 21:58, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Gerald did ask me to update the libstdc++ docs but I didn't (and I'm still not sure what the consensus was regarding which link to use.) Actually the right fix for the libstdc++ docs seems pretty obvious, I'll do it tomorrow.

Re: Fw: [RE-SENDING]Re: MCSoC2013: to enhance embedded Linux for many-core system

2012-12-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 December 2012 03:06, ETANI NORIKO wrote: Of course, we can use GCC on a host core, and we can use MPFR and GMP. However, as long as we use LD to link object files and create a binary file for a computing device core, we cannot use MPFR and GMP. Here, we would like to ask you as

Re: Query for Empty Structure Extension.

2013-01-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 2 January 2013 14:32, NAVEEN CHANDRAKAR wrote: My question is what is the definition/grammer of empty structure. As i couldn't find it covered in C/Cxx standard document. The page you linked to defines a GCC extension to the C language, so if course it's not in the C standard. As the page

Re: not-a-number's

2013-01-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 16 January 2013 08:59, Mischa Baars wrote: On 01/16/2013 08:57 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Well, I have an Intel manual here that states that any operation on a QNaN should return a QNaN, which means that also the compare should return a QNaN when one or both of the arguments is a QNaN. No,

Re: Components no longer exist

2013-01-17 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 17 January 2013 15:48, Michael Witten : The documentation here: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html says: It is possible to download a full distribution or specific components... If you choose to download specific components, you must download the core GCC distribution

Re: Components no longer exist

2013-01-17 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 17 January 2013 17:29, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/17/2013 06:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 17 January 2013 15:48, Michael Witten : The documentation here: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html says: It is possible to download a full distribution

Re: Components no longer exist

2013-01-17 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 17 January 2013 17:31, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 17 January 2013 17:29, Mischa Baars mjbaars1...@gmail.com wrote: Does that mean that you are satisfied with the 'if / else' as is, and that you also do not need an improvement of the arctangent in glibc? You're confused. This is nothing

Re: Components no longer exist

2013-01-17 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 17 January 2013 17:48, Mischa Baars wrote: Indeed I am, I thought you were trying to say that gcc-x.y.z.tar.gz has missing components. I had some trouble compiler: unable to compute suffix for object files, but now it seems to work?! Did you read

Re: gcc 4.7 regression on bool function specialization

2013-01-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely
N.B. This mail is not appropriate on this mailing list, which is for discussion of development of GCC. For help with GCC use the gcc-help list or to report bugs use bugzilla, thanks. On 19 January 2013 18:58, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: /* * * The output of this with gcc 4.7.2 is: * * 1

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 the estimated timeframe by which full

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 to or will finish when Clang does? Are you going to do the missing work? Or get someone else to? Do you know something those of us actually working

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 and diffuse just one person's (potentially

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 certainly have not heard of any such

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22 January 2013 18:02, Alec Teal wrote: 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

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22 January 2013 17:51, Alec Teal wrote: 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

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 22 January 2013 19:13, Alec Teal wrote: I meant out there not with GCC, I do think macros have a use, a report of the form expanded from: would be helpful, and some sort of callstack-like output? GCC 4.8 does something like that. It isn't perfect yet, but it's pretty good.

Re: hard typdef - proposal - I know it's not in the standard

2013-01-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 languages) but if AND ONLY if it is before a

Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?

2013-01-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 23 January 2013 07:11, Uday Khedker wrote: This is because no matter what one has done, unless one has contributed code, one is not considered a contributor to GCC. There are people credited in http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Contributors.html for documentation or bug triage work.

Re: Compiling GCC problems

2013-01-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
Please use the gcc-help mailing list for discussing using and building GCC, rather than this list. Please take any follow up there, thanks. On 23 January 2013 08:25, Alec Teal wrote: On 23/01/13 08:19, Alec Teal wrote: On 23/01/13 08:16, Alec Teal wrote: configure went well but I keep

Re: hard typdef - proposal - I know it's not in the standard

2013-01-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 in the front end and transformed into something in the compiler's tree data structures. FWIW I've usually

Re: hard typdef - proposal - I know it's not in the standard

2013-01-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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, extending an int effectively, this is what I

Re: hard typdef - proposal - I know it's not in the standard

2013-01-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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' and it would be ambiguous. You need a

Re: problems compiling 4.7, with Solaris cc and/or Solaris CC (C++)

2013-02-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 9 February 2013 23:49, Jay K wrote: problems compiling 4.7, with Solaris cc and/or Solaris CC (C++) 1) ENUM_BITFIELD is not portable. I've reported this before. Have you reported it to bugzilla? It is likely that in 4.8 this is moot, as the C++ case will be the only one remaining.

Re: Use of templates in c code?

2013-02-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 have a reason for .cpp

Re: Use of templates in c code?

2013-02-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 a working version already. thoughts and

Re: Use of templates in c code?

2013-02-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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). See http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html

Re: Use of templates in c code?

2013-02-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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, the runtime library uses .cc and the G

Re: C/C++ Option to Initialize Variables?

2013-02-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 February 2013 13:28, Jeffrey Walton wrote: The reason I went looking for the flag is someone asked about a crash on the OpenSSL mailing list. I knew it was due to an uninitialized field (but they did not realize the value was not initialized). I wanted to suggest a quick way to find what

Re: C++ conversion: an observation about minimum compiler version

2013-03-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 4 March 2013 19:59, Thierry Moreau wrote: The observation is *if* the gcc source code has some C++ depency(ies) which similarly needs say version=4.7 and a machine has only gcc 4.4 installed, then migrating to e.g. gcc 5.3 requires installing v.X, (4.7 = X

Re: 32 bit pointers on a 64 bit system

2013-03-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 6 March 2013 12:38, David McQuillan wrote: Have there been any implementations of gcc for a 32 bit pointer system where the registers are 64 bits long? Yes, the new x32 ABI for x86_64, see https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ and http://lwn.net/Articles/456731/

Re: Trying to find a link for information about parsing template parameters and the problem

2013-04-01 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 1 April 2013 20:43, Alec Teal wrote: I don't have a link, but it seems to me that the issue is obvious. The C++ lexer recognizes as a single token. So when you write std::vectorstd::vectorint the final is parsed as a single token, rather than the two separate tokens that the parser

Re: Updating svn.html

2013-04-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 3 April 2013 16:48, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: Hello Everyone, I would like to add the following information about my cilkplus branch under Language-specific in the SVN.html webpage. Do I send this as a patch or is there a specific person I should contact with the information? Here

Re: google summer of code 2013

2013-04-04 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 31 March 2013 18:35, Edik Bondarenko wrote: I am a student of Dnipropetrovsk National University. I am studying on the fourth course. I want to do 'Precision in Wording' for gcc. Clang can shows exact description of the error with the instructions how to fix it and I often need to use

Macro for C++14 support

2013-04-21 Thread Jonathan Wakely
I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14 at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use. Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to -std=c++1y? Alternatively we could set the value of __cplusplus to 201400L but I'm not

Re: Macro for C++14 support

2013-04-21 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 21 April 2013 18:05, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com ha scritto: I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14 at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use. Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__

Re: Macro for C++14 support

2013-04-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 23 April 2013 15:29, Paolo Carlini wrote: Hi, Gabriel Dos Reis g...@integrable-solutions.net ha scritto: There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am inclined to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target. This clarified - thanks - I'm

Re: Macro for C++14 support

2013-04-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 23 April 2013 15:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: But remember we no longer use __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ anyway, yes, this was a great move; kudos to whoever did it. That was Jason, when he changed the front end

Re: gcc home page

2013-04-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote: Hi, I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes. In C++ paragraph about explicit override control. In example code, is it really struct, not class? Yes, that's valid C++, the example is fine.

Re: _contribute.html_: missing information regarding feedback procedure

2013-05-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 May 2013 12:29, Zvi Gilboa wrote: Greetings, At the very bottom of the above page (http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html), there is no indication of GCC only accepting *plain text* messages. That would belong on http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html but it could be improved, as it only says Please

Re: Buzilla SVN commit messages

2013-05-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 May 2013 11:38, Oleg Endo wrote: Hi, I've noticed that for some reason SVN commit messages stopped showing up in Bugzilla PRs a while ago (before the Bugzilla 4.4 update). It was the sourceware.org hardware upgrade. The svn commit hook that used to email bugzilla wasn't migrated over.

Re: GCC 4.8.1 Released

2013-05-31 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 31 May 2013 12:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote: The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.8.1 has been released. GCC 4.8.1 is the first bug-fix release containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in GCC 4.8.0 with over 91 bugs fixed since the previous release. Support for C++11

Re: gcc home page

2013-06-02 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 2 June 2013 19:06, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 26 April 2013 13:09, Jurgis Upenieks wrote: I think that I have found a bug in gcc home page gcc-4.7 changes. In C++ paragraph about explicit override control. In example code, is it really struct

Broken links to libstdc++ docs

2013-06-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
Once again the links from http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/ to the libstdc++ docs don't work: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.6.4/libstdc++/manual/ http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.7.3/libstdc++/manual/

Re: 4.8.1 fails to build on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

2013-06-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 10 June 2013 16:59, Piotr Wyderski wrote: I have a set of the required libraries built and installed into separate directories, so when gcc is configured with: ../configure --prefix=/opt/tools/gcc-4.8.1 --with-gmp=/opt/tools/gmp-5.1.2 --with-mpfr=/opt/tools/mpfr-3.2.1

Re: 4.8.1 fails to build on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu

2013-06-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely
I've just noticed this mail was sent to the gcc@ list, which is for development of GCC itself. For help using and installing GCC please use the gcc-help@ list instead, see http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html

Re: [C++14] Admit C++ keywords as literal suffixes.

2013-06-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 June 2013 07:04, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: I understand that the literal operators for complex numbers for C++14 faltered at least in part because of the perceived ugliness of the float operator: constexpr complexfloat operator i_f(); // fugly The obvious choice constexpr

Re: [C++14] Admit C++ keywords as literal suffixes.

2013-06-18 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 18 June 2013 08:35, Andreas Schwab wrote: According to 2.14.8#10 this is ill-formed. It's ill-formed for users to define it, but not ill-formed according to the language grammar, and the compiler would need to implement that grammar if operatorif gets added to the standard library (which

Re: Compiling GCC under Cygwin

2013-06-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 20 June 2013 11:00, Arjen Markus wrote: Hi Angelo, well, the DOS-style path only caused a warning in the configure step, so I assumed it was okay. It was not apparently. Building out-of-source is an instruction I must have missed. It's documented here

Re: Variadic Template Specialization vis a vi the INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2011 standard

2013-06-30 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 30 June 2013 18:17, Aaron Gray wrote: Prompted by a Stack Overflow article :- http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17332749/vs2013-fails-with-variadic-template-specialization/ There seems to be anomalies between GCC 4.8.1's 0x11 implementation and the standard. Then please report it

Re: [boost] lots of warning with gcc-4.8.1 + boost-1.54.0

2013-07-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 3 July 2013 02:41, Nathan Ridge wrote: Lots of warnings like this: ./boost/bind/arg.hpp:37:22: warning: typedef ‘T_must_be_placeholder’ locally defined but not used [-Wunused-local-typedefs] when building 1.54.0 with gcc-4.8.1 (fedora f19) This warning is new in GCC 4.8, and I have been

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >