Speaking from an RTEMS perspective, many of our examples show an
initialisation thread setting up arguments to invoke main() with argc and
argv and processing the return code.
I would lean to main(int, char**) being known special by gcc. It won't
bother the RTEMS embedded environment at all to do
On 9/28/22 16:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
As part of implementing a C++23 proposal [1] to massively increase the
scope of the freestanding C++ standard library some questions came up
about the special handling of main() that happens for hosted
environments.
As required by both C++ (all versions)
I had a feeling that's what the answer was going to be, but, well, I figured
it couldn't hurt to ask.
Especially because I hadn't before noticed the maintainer-scripts
subdirectory. That alone made asking worth it.
Thank you very much,
Bob Dubner
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Pinsk
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 20:41, Gavin Smith wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:39:04PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> > [[[ foreign or domestic, r
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:39:04PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > There
Am 04.10.22 um 17:12 schrieb Ben Boeckel:
This patch implements support for [P1689R5][] to communicate to a build
system the C++20 module dependencies to build systems so that they may
build `.gcm` files in the proper order.
Is there a reason that you are touching so many frontends?
diff --gi
On 2022-10-04 15:05, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I did indeed. Both the proposal and these minutes mention migrating
websites without mentioning any specifics. Knowing which websites are
meant and why they need migration is useful information.
The FSF tech team is helping us coordinating things on over
Hi Siddhesh,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
> > > scope creep o
On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 4:32 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> I have modified the source code of GCC, and I need a tarball for that
> modified source.
>
> My code is based on the trunk branch of the repository at
> git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
>
> I attempted to execute "make dist", and have encountere
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>> > scope creep of the GTI proposal
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> There is one additional error here if the above-mentioned URL is
> correct: t
On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
scope creep of the GTI proposal.
Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link?
It
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>scope creep of the GTI proposal.
Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link?
It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 12:18 PM Shivam Rajput via Gcc
wrote:
> Hey, I was trying to build clang's libcxx on my ubuntu 22.04 and it has
> gcc-11.2 by default most prolly, but while building libcxx there was an
> error about using the deleted function but it seems that overloaded
> resolution in gc
On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 at 17:17, Shivam Rajput via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hey, I was trying to build clang's libcxx on my ubuntu 22.04 and it has
> gcc-11.2 by default most prolly, but while building libcxx there was an
> error about using the deleted function but it seems that overloaded
> resolution in gcc-
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 9:18 AM Shivam Rajput via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hey, I was trying to build clang's libcxx on my ubuntu 22.04 and it has
> gcc-11.2 by default most prolly, but while building libcxx there was an
> error about using the deleted function but it seems that overloaded
> resolution in gc
Hey, I was trying to build clang's libcxx on my ubuntu 22.04 and it has
gcc-11.2 by default most prolly, but while building libcxx there was an
error about using the deleted function but it seems that overloaded
resolution in gcc-11 has a bug https://godbolt.org/z/GPTPYaobb , it
consider wrong over
This patch adds initial support for ISO C++'s [P1689R5][], a format for
describing C++ module requirements and provisions based on the source
code. This is required because compiling C++ with modules is not
embarrassingly parallel and need to be ordered to ensure that `import
some_module;` can be s
This patch implements support for [P1689R5][] to communicate to a build
system the C++20 module dependencies to build systems so that they may
build `.gcm` files in the proper order.
Support is communicated through the following three new flags:
- `-fdeps-format=` specifies the format for the out
Hi -
> > I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM
> > with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure
> > is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator.
>
> I suppose that's a difference in our perception then. I think of
> infrastructu
On 2022-10-04 10:41, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM
with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure
is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator.
I suppose that's a difference in our perception then.
Hi -
> > > I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded
> > > compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on
> > > that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU
> > > toolchain without affecting its core governance.
> >
On 2022-10-04 10:19, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded
compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on
that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU
toolchain without affecting its core
Hi -
> > > [...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
> > > the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
> >
> > Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
> > you foresee with the status quo? This is the first I recall hear
On 2022-10-04 10:01, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
[...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
you foresee with the status quo? This i
Hi -
> [...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
> the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
you foresee with the status quo? This is the first I recall hearing
of this concern.
On 2022-10-02 16:47, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
I've published the current GTI TAC meeting minutes to the glibc website:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/index.html
The slides from the LF IT are a good overview:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/LF%20IT%20Core%20Projects
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 08:42:58AM -0400, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 13:29 +0100, Philip Herron wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of
> > our patches have not been reviewed yet.
> >
> > There are a few main is
On Tue, 2022-10-04 at 13:29 +0100, Philip Herron wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of
> our patches have not been reviewed yet.
>
> There are a few main issues that have been raised so far, and we are
> fixing those at the moment in prepara
Hi everyone,
As the cut-off for merging is coming up in November, quite a few of
our patches have not been reviewed yet.
There are a few main issues that have been raised so far, and we are
fixing those at the moment in preparation for version 3 of the
patches. Is there anything else we can do to
30 matches
Mail list logo
