From patchwork Thu Jan 12 19:51:29 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Benjamin Kosnik X-Patchwork-Id: 135687 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B959BB6F6F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 06:51:53 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1327002715; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=30Ai2+VkWJ/6oNyV2FyDbu8adAc=; b=bAAAnARHCRP/VdS 5OOMvdMC+O6J0VEFGJ8Lvojwxr16kTkhU/CYdInbHn5Poo75Jq40IbKgm/jfWTxK pjqzhdwObl1AB5UwSdw3qTo68OA9JK9MWLkkrM7XP/GXglrY8wLa003woaQsKhzS W8khjUHK5og4zwExfg81O7MuvZbM= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=yMb2dvsI7JL4LgDBLFvUBhEvd40ypGfVnIo/5XW6HmIdjhdH7mi+dS7bBOdmjD GVTYgnKM8VXFbJJQoscm/BPg0DzFJrIw0+JaavMXaro2ZvkA1gWyDLk+99CCHH5o obk7tbPvg4mE9R9WMZr1XfSCKK9ES6EbZq7t8gejvElck=; Received: (qmail 31829 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2012 19:51:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 31817 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Jan 2012 19:51:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_PASS, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:51:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0CJpUui008290 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:51:30 -0500 Received: from shotwell (ovpn-113-29.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.29]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0CJpTxx013250 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:51:30 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:51:29 -0800 From: Benjamin Kosnik To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [wwwdocs] gcc-4.7/porting_to.html Message-ID: <20120112115129.4de026a5@shotwell> In-Reply-To: References: <20120111161110.5b66d228@shotwell> Mime-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Here's the page with links, more validation fixes, and removal of the C item. best, Benjamin 2012-01-12 Benjamin Kosnik * htdocs/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html: Fixup for validation. * htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html: Add link to porting_to.html. * htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html: Add link to porting_to.html. Index: htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.136 diff -c -p -r1.136 changes.html *** htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html 30 Oct 2011 12:55:43 -0000 1.136 --- htdocs/gcc-4.6/changes.html 12 Jan 2012 19:33:38 -0000 *************** *** 125,130 **** --- 125,134 ---- configurations obsoleted in GCC 4.5. +
  • More information on porting to GCC 4.6 from previous versions + of GCC can be found in + the porting + guide for this release.

    • General Optimizer Improvements

    Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html,v retrieving revision 1.72 diff -c -p -r1.72 changes.html *** htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html 30 Dec 2011 23:56:48 -0000 1.72 --- htdocs/gcc-4.7/changes.html 12 Jan 2012 19:33:38 -0000 *************** *** 50,55 **** --- 50,60 ----
  • Support has been removed for the NetWare x86 configuration obsoleted in GCC 4.6.
    • + +
  • More information on porting to GCC 4.7 from previous versions + of GCC can be found in + the porting + guide for this release.
    • Index: htdocs/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html,v retrieving revision 1.4 diff -c -p -r1.4 porting_to.html *** htdocs/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html 12 Jan 2012 19:30:54 -0000 1.4 --- htdocs/gcc-4.7/porting_to.html 12 Jan 2012 19:33:38 -0000 *************** Invalid options need to be removed from *** 54,76 **** by something that is valid.

    -

    C language issues

    - -

    Boolean type promotion changes

    - -

    - The C compiler no longer promotes boolean values in arithmetic - statements to integer values. Configure-related code that checks for - C99's <stdbool.h> may be impacted. If the following line is - newly present in configure logs, then <stdbool.h> support is - incorrectly configured. -

    - - 
    - checking for stdbool.h that conforms to C99... no
-
    - -

    C++ language issues

    Header dependency changes

    --- 54,59 ---- *************** const char *p = “foobar”__TI *** 237,248 ****

    In C++03, the __TIME__ macro expands to some string literal and is concatenated with the other one. In C++11 __TIME__ isn't expanded, instead operator ! "" __TIME__ is being looked up, resulting in the following diagnostic: 

    !  error: unable to find string literal operator ‘operator“” __TIME__’

    --- 220,232 ----

    In C++03, the __TIME__ macro expands to some string literal and is concatenated with the other one. In C++11 __TIME__ isn't expanded, instead operator ! “” __TIME__ is being looked up, resulting in the following diagnostic: 

    !  error: unable to find string literal operator
!  ‘operator“” __TIME__’