Hi all,
I'm investigating whether GCC can vectorize the below case on ppc64le.
extern void test(unsigned int t[4][4]);
void foo(unsigned char *p1, int i1, unsigned char *p2, int i2)
{
unsigned int tmp[4][4];
unsigned int a0, a1, a2, a3;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++, p1 += i1, p2
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 10:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 6) there used to be a Raw text URL to grab the raw email, now there is nothing
Based on info from #overseers ...
While you can't download the raw text of an individual email now, you
can get the entire month's mail in a compressed archive, from
On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 22:01 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Paul Smith wrote:
> > I have a sysroot I've created (downloading RPMs from older systems and
> > unpacking them) which is sufficient to build GCC (and binutils etc.) I
> > need the GCC binaries I create to be compiled usi
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 19:57, Thomas König wrote:
> As far as the advantages go: A per-thread view is nice, but I don't
> think having it outweighs the disadvantages above.
We always had a threaded view:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-bugs/2020-03/threads.html
It just wasn't the default:
https:/
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Paul Smith wrote:
> I have a sysroot I've created (downloading RPMs from older systems and
> unpacking them) which is sufficient to build GCC (and binutils etc.) I
> need the GCC binaries I create to be compiled using this sysroot so
> that they can run on older systems.
>
>
I have a somewhat complex makefile that I've been using for many years
to build GCC: it builds tools needed (make, bison, flex, m4, binutils),
downloads the source prerequisites and links them, etc.
I'd like some advice, hopefully an easy answer, that allows me to
simplify that system, which curre
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Jakub Jelinek via Overseers wrote:
> 5) emails used to be sanitized against harvesters, now they aren't
The pipermail munging feature was unusably bad (it messed up Texinfo diffs
very badly, including in the mbox version of the archive, e.g. "+@node" at
the start of a line w
Hi,
Some comments.
Generally, I found the old format to be very good for navigating, and I
would like to have the new one match the old one as closely as possible.
1) the by date monthly list of mails used to be ordered newest to oldest
mails first, now it is oldest to newest, so when dealing
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:10:31AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers wrote:
>Hi -
>
>> one more point: The gcc mailing list including this discussion is
>> currently not being archived, the last message is from 2020-03-06.
>
>Found & fixed a permission problem with the mailmnan archives.
>Let's
X86 GCC automated testers are back online. They bootstrap and run
testsuite for master
branch and the current 2 release branches on Linux/x86-64 and Linux/i686:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-March/555912.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2020-March/555909.ht
On 3/9/20 1:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 16:58, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 3/9/20 9:57 AM, Thomas König wrote:
Hi,
I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful than
the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
OMG I've just
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 16:58, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> On 3/9/20 9:57 AM, Thomas König wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful
> > than the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
>
> OMG I've just looked. It's awful. Sor
On Mär 09 2020, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> For example https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-March/date.html
> just gives a list of emails, no dates shown. There's no indication what
> the ordering is -- and apparently it is not most recent first.
Heading says:
Starting: Sun Mar 1 01:37:0
On 3/9/20 9:57 AM, Thomas König wrote:
Hi,
I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful than
the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
OMG I've just looked. It's awful. Sorry, but No.
For example
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/20
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, March 5, 2020 6:59 PM, Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:04:16PM +, GT wrote:
>
> > At the top of that file is dejagnu directive:
> > /* { dg-require-effective-target vect_int } */
> >
> > 1. How do I check to see if vect_in
Hi -
Thanks for the kind words.
> Could this have gone a bit smoother? Yes. More collaborative? Maybe.
We tried: the plan to migrate to mailman was included by reference
from the systemwide announcement blast two weeks ago:
https://sourceware.org/sourceware-wiki/MigrationStatus/
We continue to
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Thomas König wrote:
> I also seem to have missed all discussion on this change (if there was
> anything). I do not understand why such a huge change was implemented
> that way, and who did this. Perhaos the person(s) responsible could
> speak up about this.
Let's be careful
Hi -
> Is it expected that
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20200308/sha512.sum is not
> present?
> There is a sha512.sum file in previous snapshot dirs.
system & per-user cron job items have not been brought forward
en masse. Copied a relevant one over now
(/sourceware/infra/bin/make-
Hi -
> one more point: The gcc mailing list including this discussion is
> currently not being archived, the last message is from 2020-03-06.
Found & fixed a permission problem with the mailmnan archives.
Let's see if this one makes it in now.
- FChE
Hi,
one more point: The gcc mailing list including this discussion is currently not
being archived, the last message is from 2020-03-06.
Hi,
I concur with what Jakub wrote. The new web interface is much less useful than
the old one; a severe regression for developers, so to speak.
I also seem to have missed all discussion on this change (if there was
anything). I do not understand why such a huge change was implemented that way,
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020, Florian Weimer wrote:
> So the difference is
>
> List-Id:
>
> vs
>
> List-Id: Gcc mailing list
>
> I guess now you need to perform a substring match.
Or remove the string. Is that doable?
(It does not add value, and "Gcc" is wrong spelling anyway.)
Gerald
* Richard Earnshaw:
> On 09/03/2020 10:30, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Richard Bradfield:
>>
>>> It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list
>>> over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from
>>> outbound mail. The last GCC mail I have where the header
On Mär 09 2020, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I use that to reply to mails that I don't have in my mailbox, because
> I'm not sub'd to the list. With the raw text link you could download a
> mailbox file of the mail, and so open it in your local MUA and reply
> (with a correct In-Reply-To header, so th
On Sun, 8 Mar 2020 at 22:48, GCC Administrator wrote:
>
> Snapshot gcc-10-20200308 is now available on
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20200308/
> and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
>
> This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
>
On 09/03/2020 10:30, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Richard Bradfield:
It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list
over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from
outbound mail. The last GCC mail I have where the header is intact was
from Friday 6th.
There
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 10:28, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 1) the by date monthly list of mails used to be ordered newest to oldest
> mails first, now it is oldest to newest, so when dealing with new stuff one
> has to always scroll down
You can use #end to jump to the bottom.
> 6) there used to be a Ra
On Mon, 09 Mar 2020 11:27:46 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 09 2020, Richard Bradfield wrote:
>
> > It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list
> > over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from
> > outbound mail.
>
> Worksforme. These are the
* Richard Bradfield:
> It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list
> over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from
> outbound mail. The last GCC mail I have where the header is intact was
> from Friday 6th.
There weren't any List-Id headers before the
On Mär 09 2020, Richard Bradfield wrote:
> It appears that since the migration (or whatever happened on the list
> over the weekend), the List-Id header is also being stripped from
> outbound mail.
Worksforme. These are the list-related headers of your mail:
Precedence: list
List-Id: Fortran ma
On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:46:31AM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Thomas, hi Overseers
>
> I can confirm that those are stripped off!
>
> I did sent an email with three attachments:
> * test.txt (text/plain)
> * test.diff (text/x-diff)
> * the company's disclaimer
>
> The attachment with 'text
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 09:56, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 09:45, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> > The formatting is not (to me) so much of an issue,
>
> I frequently scanned down the right edge of the page looking for
> specific email addresses. That's harder to do when the addre
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 09:45, Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> The formatting is not (to me) so much of an issue,
I frequently scanned down the right edge of the page looking for
specific email addresses. That's harder to do when the addresses
aren't right-aligned, but I guess I'll get used to it.
>b
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:46:31 +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Hi Thomas, hi Overseers
>
> I can confirm that those are stripped off!
>
> I did sent an email with three attachments:
> * test.txt (text/plain)
> * test.diff (text/x-diff)
> * the company's disclaimer
It appears that since the migration
Hi Thomas, hi Overseers
I can confirm that those are stripped off!
I did sent an email with three attachments:
* test.txt (text/plain)
* test.diff (text/x-diff)
* the company's disclaimer
The attachment with 'text/x-diff' MIME was removed :-(
See: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/current/0
Hi Folks,
thanks for the work to migrate to the new server.
In the transition, I observe some changes to the integration of mail with
the web-pages.
In particular, my existing links seem to point now to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gxxx
If I reconnect from the GCC front page, f
> CC overseers.
>
> they are not stripped – I do see them both in my inbox and at
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-March/054050.html
They were stripped for me :-( I even mailed Paul about the (for me) missing
attachment.
Not sure what is going on there, but whatever change was made
CC overseers.
they are not stripped – I do see them both in my inbox and at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-March/054050.html
However, attachments of the "text/x-…" format (here: text/x-patch)
are no longer shown inline but have to be downloaded (with the
inconvenient suffix: .bin) –
Hi,
looks like the new mailing list setup is stripping off patches. Example:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/fortran/2020-
March/054050.html
The attachments are also not distributed via mail.
This breaks the gfortran review process. Could somebody please fix this?
Regards
39 matches
Mail list logo
