Hey, spotted an out-of-date reference on gcc.gnu.org
Dear GCC Team, I’m writing because you cite DEC.com in this post on GCC - but the website has been offline for 5+ years! At Digital.com, we've published a "long read" on the rise and fall of Digital Equipment Corporation, which I thought make an "easy fix" to send your readers somewhere more useful than a 404 page. It covers everything from VAX, Altavista, DEC's sale to Compaq & ultimate demise. You'll find the article here:- https://digital.com/about/dec/ Would you consider citing our work to replace the broken DEC.com link, please? I think this article would keep your content current and your readers happy - love to hear what you think. Either way, thank you for your time and consideration. Best wishes, Richard Digital.com Don't want emails from us anymore? Reply to this email with the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line. Digital.com, BM Box 3667 , London, Greater London, WC1N 3XX , United Kingdom
Re: GCC GSoC 2020: Call for mentors and project ideas
Hi David, On Wed, Feb 12 2020, David Malcolm wrote: > On Thu, 2020-02-06 at 20:58 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: >> On Mon, 2020-01-27 at 16:30 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: >> > On 1/15/20 11:45 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> > > Therefore, first and foremost, I would like to ask all >> > > (moderately) >> > > seasoned GCC contributors to consider mentoring a student this >> > > year >> > > and >> > > ideally also come up with a project that they would like to >> > > lead. I'm >> > > collecting proposal on our wiki page >> > >> > @David would you be interested in a analyzer topics? Seems to me >> > ideal for newcomers to come up with a static analyzer check? >> >> I'm not quite sure what the appropriate size of a project would be, >> but >> I'd be happy to mentor a student. Some ideas I had for analyzer >> topics: >> >> * Generalize double-free checker to attribute-marking of >> acquire/release API entrypoints so that the user can mark the >> entrypoints and get a checker for that API "for free". >> >> * Checking of the POSIX file-descriptor APIs (int rather than FILE >> *), >> or some other POSIX API that we're not yet checking. >> >> * Maybe add plugin support, and write a plugin to add a project >> specific-checker for a project of interest to the student (Linux >> kernel?) >> >> * C++ support (new/delete checking, exceptions, etc) >> >> Thoughts? >> Dave > > I've taken the liberty of adding the above idea to the list of > "Selected Project Ideas for 2020" on > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SummerOfCode > with me as mentor. > Excellent! ...and sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Thanks a lot, Martin
RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: GCC selftest improvements
> On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > Some nitpicks: > > > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10 > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this > > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of the > > release cycle for gcc 11 (in April, hopefully). > > Ah I should've looked a bit harder for timelines before asking https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html. Appreciate the response here! > > But yes, it's probably a good idea to get feedback on the patch given > > the breadth of platforms we support. > > > > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for "Tools/packages > > necessary for building GCC" in gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently > > has some paragraphs labelled: > >@item ISO C++98 compiler > > that will need changing. > > > > I think Richi mentioned that the minimum gcc version should be 4.8.2 > > as he recalled issues with .1, so maybe the error message and docs > > should reflect that? > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00180.html > > Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html Looking at release dates 4.8.5 was in June 2015 while 4.8.2 in October 2013 which is a pretty big gap. I'd for moving the needle as far as we reasonably can since this is a leap anyways. @Segher do you have a reason in mind for the higher versioning? > > This may be opening a can of worms that should wait until we're done > > with the GCC 10 release, but there's probably an eventual wider > > discussion about what parts of C++11 we should use; pragmatically > > we're also limited by gengtype, the tool that scrapes the source code > > looking for garbage-collector markup, as that imposes a subset of C++ on us. > > > > I'd love to be able to rely on move semantics and thus use e.g. > > std::unique_ptr to capture more of our memory-management in the type > > system (we currently have a limited C++98-compatible implementation in > > the tree in the form of gnu::unique_ptr). > > > > How much of the stdlib do we see ourselves using? I think we've > > avoided std::string and the <<-style stream APIs; is there a case for > > using some of the other data structures? > > > > For reference, see > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/codingconventions.html#Cxx_Conventions > > > > Hope this is constructive. > > Dave > Dave, > > I recall originally bringing up the move. From memory I recall that these were > the features we wanted or the people in the discussion wanted from C++11: > 1. Better Rounding and Stricter Integer and other number type rules 2. > Template > Aliasing 3. Auto and for each style loops 4. Move and R Value Semantics > Agreed on these features. I really like having access to 'for (const auto & foo : bar)' > There was a little discussion about lambas and anonymous functions but I don't > recall that being clear in terms of one of the above areas for sure. > > Maybe that helps, > Nick
