Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 04:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > Hi, > > I do not want to start a flame war. > > I just am curious what was the reason why > the old system cannot be used any more? The software it ran on hasn't been maintained for years. > Would there be a possibility to get the old look-and-feel back? There are at least two existing threads on this topic.
Re: Changes dueto server migration
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 05:51, Fangrui Song wrote: > It is really difficult for a non-subscriber to comment now. > There are no To: or Cc: fields on Pipermail. Yes, that's a pain. You can click on the sender's address at the top of the archived mail (or use https://gitlab.com/miscripts/miscripts/-/blob/master/gcc/get_gcc_mail to do so in mutt) but it only replies to the sender. The list isn't CC'd and neither are any other people CC'd on the original mail (which might include people who aren't subscribed to the list, and now won't receive your reply).
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On 3/25/20 8:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 04:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I do not want to start a flame war. >> >> I just am curious what was the reason why >> the old system cannot be used any more? > > The software it ran on hasn't been maintained for years. > >> Would there be a possibility to get the old look-and-feel back? > > There are at least two existing threads on this topic. > Sigh, yes, but it needs much more clicks than before to get an overview of the messages, so I did assume that was already discussed, but frankly I not even know which threads those were. Bernd.
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On 3/25/20 8:58 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 3/25/20 8:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 04:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not want to start a flame war. >>> >>> I just am curious what was the reason why >>> the old system cannot be used any more? >> >> The software it ran on hasn't been maintained for years. >> >>> Would there be a possibility to get the old look-and-feel back? >> >> There are at least two existing threads on this topic. >> > > Sigh, yes, but it needs much more clicks than before to get > an overview of the messages, so I did assume that was already > discussed, but frankly I not even know which threads those were. > A different approach would be this: what do we have to do to get our mailing list threads to marc info, and spinics, where all the linux stuff is hosted, that is doing way better than this? I know gcc-patches is at marc.info but gdb-patches is not and gcc probably also not. Bernd.
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
> On 3/25/20 8:58 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On 3/25/20 8:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 04:48, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi, I do not want to start a flame war. I just am curious what was the reason why the old system cannot be used any more? >>> >>> The software it ran on hasn't been maintained for years. >>> Would there be a possibility to get the old look-and-feel back? >>> >>> There are at least two existing threads on this topic. >>> >> >> Sigh, yes, but it needs much more clicks than before to get >> an overview of the messages, so I did assume that was already >> discussed, but frankly I not even know which threads those were. >> > > > A different approach would be this: > > what do we have to do to get our mailing list threads to > marc info, and spinics, where all the linux stuff is hosted, > that is doing way better than this? > > I know gcc-patches is at marc.info but gdb-patches is not > and gcc probably also not. I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days is lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can address most if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has NNTP support, though I've no idea whether it could be an acceptable solution from the overseers' perspective. [1] https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git Arseny.
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days is >lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can address >most >if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has NNTP >support, >though I've no idea whether it could be an acceptable solution from the >overseers' perspective. > >[1] https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git The overseers are trying hard to use only software that can be installed via the RHEL packaging system so as not to duplicate the mistake that kept us dependent on poorly supported mail software. Is there a public-inbox rpm package for RHEL or CentOS? FWIW, this particular overseer is is also pretty exhausted from the effort of moving sourceware to a new system + new software and would not relish the effort involved in getting all of this moved to new software. cgf
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
-On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >> I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days >> is >> lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can address >> most >> if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has NNTP >> support, >> though I've no idea whether it could be an acceptable solution from the >> overseers' perspective. >> >> [1] https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git > > The overseers are trying hard to use only software that can be installed > via the RHEL packaging system so as not to duplicate the mistake that > kept us dependent on poorly supported mail software. Is there a > public-inbox rpm package for RHEL or CentOS? > > FWIW, this particular overseer is is also pretty exhausted from the > effort of moving sourceware to a new system + new software and would not > relish the effort involved in getting all of this moved to new software. > Honestly this is not about blaming you at all. I do not quite understand what is the exact software which was used previously? what is the exact problem that prevents it from being used any longer? Which software is being used now? Why is gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org. and fort...@gcc.gnu.org even this e-mail thread visible on marc.info: https://marc.info/?l=gcc&m=158512515107459&w=2 but not gdb-patches ? Could you add a link to https://marc.info/?l=gcc-patches https://marc.info/?l=gcc https://marc.info/?l=gcc-fortran note the unsystematic name gcc-fortran, the list is fort...@gcc.gnu.org There is no gcc-help on marc.info There is https://marc.info/?l=gcc but there is no gdb-patches what needs to be done to host those lists on marc.info as well? What needs to be done to host these lists on spinics for instance, or what else exists that can be used to search the messages? Bernd.
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
Maybe the best form of question is: Could the Overseer be so kind to release the dump of the original old mailing list on any free public file server? ср, 25 мар. 2020 г. в 21:29, Bernd Edlinger : > -On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > >> I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these > days is > >> lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can > address most > >> if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has NNTP > support, > >> though I've no idea whether it could be an acceptable solution from the > >> overseers' perspective. > >> > >> [1] https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git > > > > The overseers are trying hard to use only software that can be installed > > via the RHEL packaging system so as not to duplicate the mistake that > > kept us dependent on poorly supported mail software. Is there a > > public-inbox rpm package for RHEL or CentOS? > > > > FWIW, this particular overseer is is also pretty exhausted from the > > effort of moving sourceware to a new system + new software and would not > > relish the effort involved in getting all of this moved to new software. > > > > Honestly this is not about blaming you at all. > > I do not quite understand what is the exact software which > was used previously? > > what is the exact problem that prevents it from being used any longer? > > Which software is being used now? > > Why is gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org. and fort...@gcc.gnu.org > even this e-mail thread visible > on marc.info: https://marc.info/?l=gcc&m=158512515107459&w=2 > but not gdb-patches ? > > Could you add a link to https://marc.info/?l=gcc-patches > https://marc.info/?l=gcc > https://marc.info/?l=gcc-fortran > note the unsystematic name gcc-fortran, the list is fort...@gcc.gnu.org > > There is no gcc-help on marc.info > There is https://marc.info/?l=gcc > but there is no gdb-patches > > what needs to be done to host those lists on marc.info as well? > > What needs to be done to host these lists on spinics for instance, > or what else exists that can be used to search the messages? > > > Bernd. >
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 20:29, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > -On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: > >> I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these > >> days is > >> lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can > >> address most > >> if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has NNTP > >> support, > >> though I've no idea whether it could be an acceptable solution from the > >> overseers' perspective. > >> > >> [1] https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git > > > > The overseers are trying hard to use only software that can be installed > > via the RHEL packaging system so as not to duplicate the mistake that > > kept us dependent on poorly supported mail software. Is there a > > public-inbox rpm package for RHEL or CentOS? > > > > FWIW, this particular overseer is is also pretty exhausted from the > > effort of moving sourceware to a new system + new software and would not > > relish the effort involved in getting all of this moved to new software. > > > > Honestly this is not about blaming you at all. > > I do not quite understand what is the exact software which > was used previously? See the link at the bottom of every page in the old archive: http://www.mhonarc.org/ > what is the exact problem that prevents it from being used any longer? It's not packaged for RHEL 8. > Which software is being used now? See the text at the bottom of every page in the new archive: Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition).
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:03:15PM +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > See the link at the bottom of every page in the old archive: > http://www.mhonarc.org/ > > > what is the exact problem that prevents it from being used any longer? > > It's not packaged for RHEL 8. It is in EPEL8: https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/8/Everything/x86_64/Packages/m/mhonarc-2.6.19-17.el8.noarch.rpm Jakub
GSoC Static Analysis
Hello, I am an undergrad interested in extending GCC’s static analysis pass for GSoC 2020. In particular, I’m interested in adding C++ support. The selected project ideas list mentions adding new/delete checking and exception checking. The features that immediately come to my mind would be checking for undeleted allocations, mixing delete and delete[], double deletion (it seems the current static analyzer already checks for double free), and uncaught exceptions. What would the expected scope of this project be? All of these features sound interesting to me, but I have no idea if doing all of them would be feasible within GSoC. For information about my experience, I have about a year and a half of C++ experience (about nine months in a large code base), have written a few toy compilers in the past, and will soon be starting to take a formal course about compilers at my university. Thanks, Andrew Briand
Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back
On 3/25/20 9:29 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Could you add a link to https://marc.info/?l=gcc-patches Why is above link no longer updating this is the last message there: 1. 2020-03-07 [5] [PATCH] c++: Fix ABI issue with alignas on armv7hl [P gcc-patch Jason Merrill is this a push or a pull why is this no longer active? > https://marc.info/?l=gcc also this one: 1. 2020-03-06 [1] gcc-8-20200306 is now available gcc gccadmin but if I look for mails from bernd.edlinger at marc.info I find this thread, and pretty much everything I do except my mails on gdb-patches, how can that be? Do you have any explanation for that Thanks Bernd.
