On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Sharad Singhai wrote:
Hi,
The new dump infrastructure was committed s
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Matt Davis wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>>>
>>> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
>>> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there
Hi Ian,
Thank you for your reply.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>>
>> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
>> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
>> this
Legal drugs: smoking blends, powders and tablets.
Trip-reports, reviews, contacts of proven sellers.
For Russian ONLY.
New website: http://www.narkop.net/
You can use your old login and password. This new domain name was registred
via bullet-prof chinese registration service and never will be cl
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:16 AM, Matt Davis wrote:
>
> I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
> information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
> this information from the middle end without having to query the
> frontend?
What kind of data type info
On 12/13/2012 04:53 PM, Erik Trulsson wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius :
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriou
Quoting Ralf Corsepius :
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up w
On 12/13/2012 03:15 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of
>> Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotomy :-)
>> But if no sign of 386 embedded chips, then reasonable to deprecate
>
>
> I've never heard about them before, nor do I know how far spread their
> products are, however these folks seem to be producing i386-SoCs
> http://www
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>>> Seri
On 12/13/2012 7:26 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Ralf has found one such a vendor, it seems.
But to me, that doesn't automatically imply that GCC must continue to
support such a target. Other criteria should also be considered. For
instance, quality of implementation and maintenance burden.
Yes,
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:40 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Everything I have said is a fact, please illustrate which statement I made
> seems emotional.
Joining in this discussion at all? I wish *bsd people were just as
responsive to bug reports...
Ciao!
Steven
On 12/13/2012 13:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Gerald runs regression tests on both i386 and x86_64 freebsd (though some old
> versions of it). We do have a listed maintainer for freebsd. Apart from
> build
> issues I am not aware of frequent freebsd specific bugs.
Gerald's test for i
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:53 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino wrote:
>> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
>> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
>> listed on your reference. He also
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, John Marino wrote:
> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
> listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not using still maintained
> compilers" whi
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
> Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
> Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
> listed on your reference. He also claimed they "not using still maintained
> compilers" whic
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
>> Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
>
>
> Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
> question is whether there are other vendors producing
> compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
Ralf has found one such a
On 12/13/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On 13/12/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
Hello,
I have a GIMPLE pass and would like to make use of the data type
information that the Go frontend produces. Is there a way to access
this information from the middle end without having to query the
frontend?
-Matt
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
> Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
> don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
> because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
You're confused. Dropping something as a
On 12/13/2012 12:38, David Brown wrote:
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC
Intel stopped producing embedded 386 chips in 2007.
Right, but this architecture is not protected, so the
question is whether there are other vendors producing
compatible chips. I don't know the answer.
On 13/12/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compi
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:43 PM, John Marino wrote:
> FreeBSD and DragonFly (at least) have already dropped i386 support, it's an
> alias for i486. I don't know about NetBSD or OpenBSD.
According to
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/2009/02/24/msg000582.html
i386 support has been dr
On 12/12/2012 08:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
Seriously...
Well the embedded folk often end up with precisely this dichotom
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no reason
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>> Seriously...
>
>
> Well the embedded folk often end up with
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
> I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
> they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD has dropped GCC for future releases so there's no reason for
it to be a primary platform.
Ciao!
Ste
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>>
>> They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
>>
>> ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
>> are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say si
On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say simply go ahead.
Note that i386-freebsd is still listed as primary arch
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>>> And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
>>> would you need the latest-and-greatest compiler technology?
>>> Seriously..
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" writes:
>>
>> i386.c has
>>
>>{
>> /* When not optimize for size, enable vzeroupper optimization for
>> TARGET_AVX with -fexpensive-optimizations and split 32-byte
>> AVX unaligned load/store. */
>
> This
Hello,
I have a problem while cross-compiling a native sh4 compiler. To be
exact, I'm building on x86_64 a linux native sh4 compiler. My
configure is :
configure *--host=sh4-linux* *--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-
gnu* --prefix=/usr --exec-prefix=/usr --bindir=/usr/bin
--sbindir=/usr/sbin --sysconf
35 matches
Mail list logo
