On 2018-01-16 14:45, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:35 PM, chenzhelu wrote:
Hello all,
I encountered a problem on "local class name conflict",
I searched on net and found that years ago, some people also encoutered this
kind of problem.
The correct name for this is One Definit
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 10:35 PM, chenzhelu wrote:
> Hello all,
> I encountered a problem on "local class name conflict",
> I searched on net and found that years ago, some people also encoutered this
> kind of problem.
The correct name for this is One Definition Rule (or ODR for short).
Basical
Hello all,
I encountered a problem on "local class name conflict",
I searched on net and found that years ago, some people also encoutered this
kind of problem.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10671956/same-class-name-in-different-c-files
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/general/32010/
Please
Hello GCC maintainer,
Our team at Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. is interested in
contributing patches to the upstream GCC compiler project. To get the process
started, we'd like to request a copyright assignment form as per contribution
guidelines outlined at https://gcc.gnu.org/contri
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
>> I'm having trouble bringing up bugs or updating them. Has
>> anyone else noticed Bugzilla (and/or other services running
>> on gcc.gnu.org) being very slow or timing out?
>
> I'm presuming this c
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I'm having trouble bringing up bugs or updating them. Has
> anyone else noticed Bugzilla (and/or other services running
> on gcc.gnu.org) being very slow or timing out?
I'm presuming this comes from the read errors on sdi that I just reported
to overse
I'm having trouble bringing up bugs or updating them. Has
anyone else noticed Bugzilla (and/or other services running
on gcc.gnu.org) being very slow or timing out?
Thanks
Martin
Jeff Law writes:
> A change in reload back in 2016 (IIRC) has effectively made m32c
> unusable. The limits of the register file create horrible problems for
> reload.
>
> I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
> broken in gcc-7 and the lack of maintenance on the targ
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 11:28:25AM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> > Is cc0 conversion enough to get m68k off the chopping block?
> I would think so for this round. I suspect there'd be another round in
> the future to convert to LRA, but I suspect that'd be *much* smaller.
Yeah. And converting to LRA
On 01/15/2018 11:11 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
>
> On 1/15/2018 11:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote
On 1/15/2018 11:31 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 01:39:43PM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
> >On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>
> >>>I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
> >>>broken in gcc-7 and the la
On 01/15/2018 05:46 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
broken in gcc-7 and
On Mon, 15 Jan 2018, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
> > > > broken in gcc-7 and the lack of mai
On 13/01/18 00:16, Jeff Law wrote:
On 01/12/2018 04:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2018, Jeff Law wrote:
I was going to suggest deprecation for gcc-8 given how badly it was
broken in gcc-7 and the lack of maintenance on the target.
While we're considering deprecations, what happene
Status
==
GCC 8 is in regression and documentation fixes stage now similar as if
trunk was a release branch.
We're still in pretty bad shape regression-wise. Please also take
the opportunity to check the state of your favorite host/target
combination to make sure building and testing works
16 matches
Mail list logo
