* Angelo Graziosi wrote on Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 01:20:00AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues ha scritto:
> >* Tom Tromey wrote on Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:03:54PM CEST:
> >
> >>I think this patch qualifies as obvious.
> >
> >Alright. Installed.
>
> Shouldn't Makefile.in be rebuilt?
D'oh. Fixed now.
Thank
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:34:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> > Robert Dewar writes:
>
> >> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
> >> this mailing list.
>
> > Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quit
f...@redhat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler) writes:
> Robert Dewar writes:
>> Discussion of FSF policy on licensing issues is also off-topic for
>> this mailing list.
> Perhaps, yet the libgcc exception licensing issues were quite
> prominently discussed right here, and not too many months ago.
> Florian
Ralf Wildenhues ha scritto:
* Tom Tromey wrote on Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:03:54PM CEST:
"Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues writes:
Ralf> OK to install this trivial patch if it passes the build I'm running
Ralf> right now, as well as a normal and a DESTDIR install I'll be doing
Ralf> afterwards?
I th
struct cgraph_edge *edge = cgraph_edge (id->src_node, orig_stmt);
POINT_A
int flags;
switch (id->transform_call_graph_edges)
{
case CB_CGE_DUPLICATE:
if (edge)
cgraph_clone_edge (edge, id->
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Tim Crook wrote:
> Hi again Steven.
>
>
>
> I found a possible compiler workaround, compiling with –mminimal-toc. Would
> I get better performance by using this, instead of turning off gcse?
I have no idea, but one of the AIX maintainers can probably help you.
Cia
On 07/25/2009 10:53 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
The run-time library is GPL version 3 or
later, which is incompatible with GPL version 2, so it is not
permitted to link this with the GPLv2-only program and distribute the
result. (Previous discussions have centered on infringing GCC's
license, so t
* Tom Tromey wrote on Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:03:54PM CEST:
> > "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
> Ralf> OK to install this trivial patch if it passes the build I'm running
> Ralf> right now, as well as a normal and a DESTDIR install I'll be doing
> Ralf> afterwards?
> I think this patch
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> GCC 4.5 will remove protoize and unprotoize. I wonder whether we
> should also remove -Wtraditional-conversion and their associated
> warnings and testcases.
I don't see any reason to do that. The warning is independent of
whether or not we provide tools to introduce
GCC 4.5 will remove protoize and unprotoize. I wonder whether we
should also remove -Wtraditional-conversion and their associated
warnings and testcases.
@item -Wtraditional-conversion @r{(C and Objective-C only)}
@opindex Wtraditional-conversion
@opindex Wno-traditional-conversion
Warn if a prot
Hi --
This is just a heads-up that I'm working on GCC support
for the Xilinx MicroBlaze. It is currently based on
gcc-4.1.2 and I'm porting it to gcc-4.5.0.
--
Michael Eagerea...@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
A release candidate for the GCC 4.3.4 is now available at
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3.4-RC-20090727
I plan to roll out the final release at the beginning of next week
if there are no major problems reported.
All checkins to the 4.3 branch require release manager approval.
Thanks
> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues writes:
Ralf> OK to install this trivial patch if it passes the build I'm running
Ralf> right now, as well as a normal and a DESTDIR install I'll be doing
Ralf> afterwards?
Ralf> AFAICS the python directory is new in trunk, so no stable releases
Ralf> affected.
O
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 10:28 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
> > In most Ada code array T index type will likely be "Natural range <>"
> > and so the type system will not give useful bounds for optimizations.
>
> Well very often the bounds of the loop are taken from the bounds
Robert Dewar writes:
> [...]
>>> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>>>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>>>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
>>
>> This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
In most Ada code array T index type will likely be "Natural range <>"
and so the type system will not give useful bounds for optimizations.
Well very often the bounds of the loop are taken from the bounds
of the array, so I don't agree with that statement :-)
Laurent
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 15:32 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/27/2009 12:25 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >
> if Dynamic_N >= T'First and Dynamic_N > T'Last then
> >>> Huh? I can't understand the first comparison.
> >>> Actually Ada is not Fortran-66 and allows empty lo
On 07/27/2009 12:25 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
if Dynamic_N >= T'First and Dynamic_N > T'Last then
Huh? I can't understand the first comparison.
Actually Ada is not Fortran-66 and allows empty loops, no?
Ada for loop over "A .. B" will be empty if "A > B" and we obviously
Status
==
The 4.3 branch is now frozen in preparation for the GCC 4.3.4 release.
I am creating a release candidate right now. All patches require
release-manager approval.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from Last Report
---
> Only if you know the loop will run once can you hoist the check (or
> sink it, but you might as well hoist!) GNAT does not do this kind of
> hoisting, it is really something for the back end optimization
> circuits, not front end fiddling, though this particular case could
> be fiddled in the fro
2009/7/27 Alfred M. Szmidt :
> These three points could be included in a standard answer to
> licensing questions posted to g...@. Invariably, all such threads
> are a waste of time and bandwidth. Perhaps we can include the
> standard answer in some webpage so we can copy+paste or just poin
Dave Korn wrote:
Robert Dewar wrote:
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
:) We have a name for that on the cygwin list:
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Robert Dewar:
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF poli
> a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
>
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> � include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> � lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
* Robert Dewar:
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
This is not about legal issues. It's about FSF policy. If I wanted
leg
Robert Dewar wrote:
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
>include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
>lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
:) We have a name for that on the cygwin list:
http://cygwi
2009/7/27 Robert Dewar :
> a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
>
> b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
> include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
> lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconcep
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
We're talking about range checking here, not arithmetic overflow
checking (which is another topic where GCC infrastructure change
could help Ada of course).
That would be a huge undertaking.
Indeed, but such an undertaking might make sense if it was helpful
for C/C++ r
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
if Dynamic_N >= T'First and Dynamic_N > T'Last then
Huh? I can't understand the first comparison.
Actually Ada is not Fortran-66 and allows empty loops, no?
Ada for loop over "A .. B" will be empty if "A > B" and we obviously
must not raise an exception if the loop
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
I don't think so. And the code quality when checking for
overflows was abysmal last time I tried.
We're talking about range checking here, not arithmetic overflow
checking (which is another topic where GCC infrastructure change
could help Ada of course).
Actually in ter
b) you should ignore all such discussions, since they invariablly
include lots of legal-sounding opinions from people who are not
lawyers and don't know, and often have significant misconceptions.
Indeed I'm not answering to Florian's latest message, because I'm not
sure what he misunderstood o
There is so much incorrect information in this thread that
I would not even try to start to fix it, since it would
just cause more confusion than is already there. I would
just remind people that
a) discussions of licensing issues are off topic on this mailing list
b) you should ignore all such
Please take this up with le...@gnu.org.
* Paolo Bonzini:
>> But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those
>> changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right?
>
> Yes. But if you change the runtime library and link something else
> with the modified runtime library, the "something else" does not fall
>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:46:53AM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 09:34 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> > >for I in T'First .. Dynamic_N loop
> > > T (I) := 0.0; -- generate check I in T'First .. T'L
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 09:34 +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> >for I in T'First .. Dynamic_N loop
> > T (I) := 0.0; -- generate check I in T'First .. T'Last
> >end loop;
> >
> > =>
> >
> >if Dynamic_N >= T'First and
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 06:25:12PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 12:03 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > Indeed an alternative approach to handling this problem in GCC would
> > be to adapt the Ada model for C and C++ which would not be too hard
> > to do I suspect. Then gcc cou
Hi Rainer,
Rainer Emrich wrote:
> error: 'I' undeclared (first use in this function)
That's PR 40863 and a patch has been posted to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01520.html
That patch should also remove all those
> warning: no previous prototype for 'csinhf'
warnings.
Tobias
But if I change the run-time library, I still have to license those
changes under the GPLv3 if I want to distribute them, right?
Yes. But if you change the runtime library and link something else with
the modified runtime library, the "something else" does not fall
automatically under the G
39 matches
Mail list logo
