fixincludes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, I have two hopefully not too dull questions about the gcc fixincludes mechanism: 1) When after the initial fixinclude run (parts of) new software is installed into /usr/include, the fixincludes run has to be repeated (at least in principle), is this true? 2) IIRC several years ago there were plans to abandon fixincludes and to do the header fixing in realtime on every gcc run, what happened to the pertaining efforts? Beste regards Franz -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLWyUxAAoJEETPNNlkrKDyuUkH/i0PFOFP10+j5Ij263ujALcy E+WwWtzZB8vTWiU1oIMTTMVUsoixfuynyEt9dmYHa0a7efNsxsGzWLSJhBJ02t7x mvI0W/5akXRmP2Ytf0DBl4ocScHQ0Vk+f0DV/NWuACbAaGFHBZeWcVH/1zjukizS xDn4KqaOxsGUi+O6KLbTA6I6O2IKov5Qsf/9yXz+TYBg1/BogVwdrJ+QcpExEB5T 28W3dNCaldUCmYibiy+zkbzinyenssfAyL/l4PwoJCbMtRe4HdJBfJKwZoPlrkMs cOFWX68SqMBzQuRYEWu1zsB1p9+vzCIsfCb4qY4eoyMQXFXWdZh9C5N69+NWIYE= =IhAY -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: fixincludes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 understood. but an OS update could lead to updated C runtime headers? Am 23.01.2010 17:39, schrieb Richard Guenther: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Franz Fehringer wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have two hopefully not too dull questions about the gcc fixincludes >> mechanism: >> 1) When after the initial fixinclude run (parts of) new software is >> installed into /usr/include, the fixincludes run has to be repeated (at >> least in principle), is this true? > > As we generally only fixinclude pieces of the C runtime and the C > runtime is required to build GCC this is not true. fixincludes may of > course match in random header files as well, but that is not > intended in general. > >> 2) IIRC several years ago there were plans to abandon fixincludes and to >> do the header fixing in realtime on every gcc run, what happened to the >> pertaining efforts? > > That would surely be slow. > > Richard. > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLWycyAAoJEETPNNlkrKDyO0gH/jyNqPGiDw1KZ60pXi8x64xl KfymWY4sarWK+Uovqyh1kty0gsHu+lkB9QIpb+XlJPvme2Y6XUX5k4KTRj3rvB/i YcAY+LJgjjZZruxkhyxL4HoXU7TLa4OaiJcuWQqp/9dTZbjCWULnOHuGv1uxEgF+ yZrsGv9FQo2WnrCDt5+ltwvDS5cxkLnyQUh89bokPfujKcvu6tDKF7wMUfbxs16n 1exf7nlCJqKNl7xhrEiWCKQZuu3ke3ApUjOWMVlUF8IneukaP2PbynMP00bSDcNJ RvrgF/9CQ9DqWbCOeBojWJaDLcGBy2K5hUI5iHb5fKiId7l8bOWzYMZHVTqR8jo= =S2NG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
decimal floating point
Hi, I am investigating the possibilities of using decimal floating point arithmetic with gcc (on Linux / x86_64 to be explicit). Are _Decimal32/_Decimal64/_Decimal128 available as builtin types without further action or do i as a DFP consumer have to issue the correspondent typedef/float/attributeS by myself (as is done in the testcases and the std::decimal headerS)? How do i convert _Decimal32/_Decimal64/_Decimal128/std::decimal from/to string/char* (and do cout/stdout I/O)? Can the (internal?) std::decimal method __getval (giving one of _Decimal32/_Decimal64/_Decimal128) be used by me as a user? Are there plans to add DFP support to glibc? Are there good examples out there showing the superiority of DFP arithmetic over ordinary (binary) FP arithmetic in the domain of monetary calculations? Many thanks in advance Franz
Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?
What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the moment? Franz Am 22.01.2013 19:01, schrieb Jason Merrill: > On 01/22/2013 01:01 AM, Mayuresh Kathe wrote: >> Hello, may I know the estimated timeframe by which full support for >> C++11 would be added in to GCC? > > GCC 4.8 will be feature-complete except for ref-qualifiers, which > should go onto the trunk soon, and perhaps into a later 4.8.x release. > > Jason > >
Re: gcc : c++11 : full support : eta?
Thanks, looking much better now. Will gcc 4.8 contain the stdatomic.h header (i am a little confused about it, is it a standard header?)? Am 15.02.2013 18:07, schrieb Jason Merrill: > On 01/28/2013 02:24 PM, Jason Merrill wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 01:48 AM, Franz Fehringer wrote: >>> What does this mean for the Concurrency section, it has 8xNo at the >>> moment? >> >> I need to go back over that section, but I think it's just inaccurate. > > I've now updated the page. > > Jason > >
Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
To me (not being a contributor) this is the best contribution to the discussion so far. Am 30.03.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Maksim Fomin via Gcc: ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote: I would rather not have to write this email. Like many developers, I just want to write code. Right now we’re working towards the GCC 11 release. I thought about deferring this email. But there’s never a good time, and bad behaviour needs to be addressed in the moment. I have left this for too long already. I used to think of GCC development as egalitarian, and therefore fair, and, by assumption, welcoming. That is not true. I’m a white dude with a British accent. /Of course/ I have white male privilege. I used to joke that I fell into every job I’ve had (including my doctorate) – that, right there, is white male privilege. Perhaps you discount the benefits of white male privilege. You’re wrong. You cannot have missed the sparsity of women and people of color in compiler engineering (kaporcenter black tech workforce). Maybe you fallaciously put that down to imbalances in education (leakytechpipeline) How can we, the GCC community, be expected to address that? Representation matters, we’re the problem. [Left most relevant parts of the letter] The logic of this letter (and sjw in general) is obviously false. 1. There are no examples where Stallman (or people with similar views) censored project contribution from non-white non-male people. In recent decades there is inflow of people from different counties and 2020 is definitely more diverse in programming than 2000 or 1980. This observation (absense of discrimiation) is the first important note which blows the login behind the letter. 2. Because the p1 is hard to refute, the discussion moves from objective things (for example, rejecting some pull request from people of color) toward subjective things like 'remove Stallman because I am not comfortable with his views/claims'. However, once this arguement is naked from the rest of discussion it becomes obviously weak. Why the project should remove Stallman because 'some' people are not comfortable? Why sjw consider themselves in the position to judge? What to do with the group of people who supports him? Finally, 'white priviledge' is only one (although big) subject of dedates. What happens if other areas of social, political or economical debates are brought to the project? There are plenty of issues which divide people and there is no way to make the project to move of on if for each issue one group of people will demand removing members of comittee because of their views. 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise - they are deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his views to look immoral). 4. Regarding morality. This letter (like many other sjw creatures) says many words about morality, diversity, but at the end of the day it boils down to removing Stallman from position. As a citizen of post-soviet country I can vividly see that this letter is enterely about politics and looks very similar to communist agenda which likes to hide authoritarian policies behind morality. It is very surprising for people from former Soviet block countries to see western world falling into 'very familiar' but notorious propaganda. Best regards, Maxim Fomin
Re: On rms controversy
Very good! Am 14.04.2021 um 07:53 schrieb pawel k. via Gcc: Hello, Im multiyear gcc user on many targets. I love the project and wish it all the best. Im also senior c/cpp and linux sw devel with 20 years of experience. Im observing an rms controversy from some perspective and here are my thoughts: -you didnt base attack on real data but allegations. Additionally falsified ones. -nobody asked rms whether he retracts and indeed he does on some and clarify on others. -part of fsf is rotten by far left mental virus parasite. See gad saads book on the topic. -basically rms didnt do what he was alleged he did. -nobody gave him way to defend like in legal process. -he is back and he should stay. -those who attacked him baselessly and thoughtlessly should disappear in shame and their names should be on gcc and fsf front pages linked shamelist. -rms is heavily autistic as some may know and he might not have perfect judgmental powers over his words. -last but not least all far left snowflakes of you assuming guilt and barring one from defence, please f off and f you for now. -possibly some of you wanted to steal his project so as per above big f off and f you. That would be it. Best regards, Pawel kunio
