Hello, Jeff, DJ,
Thanks for the info.
On Dec 7, 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 12/6/23 15:03, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Alexandre Oliva writes:
>>> This looks like a latent bug in the port.
>> I'm not surprised, that port was weird.
>>
>>> This was just a plain asm insn in strub.c:
>>>
>>> /* Make s
[adding gcc@]
Hi, Jeff,
On Dec 6, 2023, Jeff Law wrote:
> libgcc is currently failing to build on rl78, looks like it might be
> strub related.
Thanks for letting me know.
>> /home/jlaw/test/gcc/libgcc/strub.c:149:1: error: unrecognizable insn:
>> 149 | }
>> | ^
>> (insn 30 64 33 4 (asm_oper
On Oct 19, 2023, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On 2023-10-18T15:42:18+0100, R jd <3246251196r...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess I can ask, why there is not a recursive approach for configuring
>> GCC. e.g. AC_SUBDIRS in the top level?
> ('AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS' you mean.) You know, often it just takes som
On May 30, 2023, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 17:16 -0300, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
>> On May 17, 2023, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
>>
>> > ISTR Alexandre Oliva (CC added) mentioning leveraging GDB to
>> > implement various bits of LS
On May 17, 2023, Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> ISTR Alexandre Oliva (CC added) mentioning leveraging GDB to implement
> various bits of LSP functionality, such as handling multiple TUs. This
> sounds like a good idea to me (at least at a high level), as it could
> lead to the hypothetical GNU toolcha
On Nov 8, 2022, Alan Modra via Gdb-patches wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 06:23:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Alan Modra via Binutils wrote:
>>
>> > a) that top-level binutils/gdb patches don't get applied to the gcc
>> >git repository in a timely manner, or
>>
>
On Nov 25, 2022, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> They don't seem to have anything to do with missing compilers, but
> rather with the use of language features too new for the available
> (downloadable) Gnat.
The gnat1 front-end requires some of the Ada runtime (libgnat)
components. They get built
On Oct 12, 2022, "Carlos O'Donell via Overseers"
wrote:
> The GNU Toolchain project leadership
Is GNU Toolchain the name of a project? This term has usually meant a
set of packages that are part of the GNU Project. Each package has its
own set of maintainers appointed by GNU leadership, each
On Oct 18, 2022, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> The rest, AFAICT, are either fear of some kind of corporate takeover,
> discussions about current sourceware infrastructure, or just rhetoric,
> none of which I'm interested in engaging with.
So in which category do you place my question about the via
On Oct 11, 2022, David Edelsohn wrote:
> open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings
Not useful when potential objectors are kept in the dark about the whole
thing.
> and have not used private conversations as public debating points nor for
> divisive purposes
The public
On Oct 4, 2022, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha"
wrote:
> What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the
> LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being
> redirected to its own managed services infrastructure?
Hear, hear,
I see a number of people, mys
On Jul 17, 2022, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> We’ll call it gust.
How about "giust"? (GNU Implementation of...)
so that it sounds like https://just-lang.org/
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU To
On Jul 17, 2022, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> None of that required a trademark license because the usage of the
> word java was just for compatibility with the java programming
> language.
"just for compatibility" is an defense that applies to copyrights, but
AFAIK it doesn't apply to trademarks.
in
On Jan 7, 2022, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Would anyone be terribly against mass renaming all *.c files (that are
> actually C++ files) within the gcc subdirectory to ones with .cc suffix?
I wouldn't mind that.
> (Any important caveats I might have missed?)
Having recently renamed a .c source to
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> "Just ignore them" allows the trolls to dominate the discussion
*nod*
That's why it's best to dissent politely, lest they incorrectly conclude
their opinions are consensual, or majoritary, just because they've
driven dissenters into silence.
V
On Apr 18, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Dave didn't say who he thinks should or shouldn't be moderated,
Shall we ask him to confirm what I read between the lines?
Shall we ask Nathan?
Shall we ask you?
> it would be silly to suggest that you should not be allowed to post
> here, given your
David,
On Apr 18, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I reject the idea that those of us who work on GCC have to put up with
> arbitrary emails from random crazies on the internet without even the
> simple recourse of being able to put individuals on moderation.
All sides in this multi-threade
On Apr 12, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> No, you are insinuating that the glibc community both as maintainer
> and contributors acted in a hateful way regarding the 'joke'
> removal. Sorry, but this is not true;
Easy to say for someone who hasn't been the target of hate, but it's
just that i
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Here you go:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235218.html
Thanks
> - this is unfair, RMS is being subjected to a witch hunt (irrelevant to my
> question, it doesn't tell me what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU
> or FSF)
Fair eno
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> All the other active maintainers suggested you shouldn't have done that, but
> you
> ignored it anyway.
How could I possibly have ignored something that hadn't happened yet?
> *we* glibc maintainers were fully aware that it was *you* that decided
>
On Apr 11, 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>> Can anyone come up with any rational motivation for this move right now?
> I gave them in my initial email. You can go find them in the archive.
Err, I've been repeatedly told (not by you) that that was a separate
discussion.
The reasons you pointed o
On Apr 11, 2021, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> It was clear to me and others glibc maintainers that it was *you* who
> bypass the consensus to *not* reinstate the “joke”.
I think you wrote it backwards: what I did was to revert the commit that
the person who put it in agreed shouldn't have been ma
On Apr 11, 2021, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> On 2021-04-11 12:30, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote:
>> AFAIK, you actually have no real say on who the company to whom you
>> sold your services assigns *their* copyrights to.
> That statement is certainly not true with me and my empl
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's pretty confusing to outsiders.
It is indeed. Up to 2004 or so, I'm told, the FSF didn't even have its
own separate web site. Before 2019, it never seemed terribly important
to clear that up, but the confusion of concerns has always bugged me.
> T
On Apr 8, 2021, David Brown wrote:
> I believe (but do not claim to be able to prove) that some of his past
> actions would fall foul of laws against sexual harassment.
If you have any evidence whatsoever to support this belief, would you
please report it to the FSF board of directors, copying
On Apr 11, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> There have been many posts over the past two weeks [...] based on
> little but veneration.
> Your own emails are always carefully considered
Thanks for confirming it.
Now, you were responding to me, not to the other posters.
As usual among RMS critic
On Apr 11, 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc wrote:
> I don't want to be in an environment where, it turns out, the leader of
> the non-profit that owns copyright on the bulk of the last 8 years of
> my work, and controls the license on the bulk of my work for the last
> 20 years, has to be patiently c
There's something very confusing about this entire debate, that signals
some clear confusion about the role of the FSF.
GCC is part of the GNU project.
RMS is founder and leader of the GNU project.
RMS is also founder of the FSF.
The FSF was initially founded to support the GNU project.
The FS
Jonathan,
It's very offensive for you to misattribute a disagreeing position as
veneration.
I could name many reasons for me to disagree with yours, including
justice, truth, honesty, tolerance, freedom of speech and unity of the
movement.
If anything, it's threatening to abandon a project over
On Apr 10, 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> When it comes to deciding the direction of a project like GCC - technical
> and otherwise - in my mind it primarily should be those actually involved
> and contributing.
GNU follows the general principle of the Free Software movement, that
freedom for *
On Apr 10, 2021, Bronek Kozicki via Gcc wrote:
> It is called "actions have consequences".
FTR, what consequences do you believe would be adequate for such actions
as spreading difamatory rumors about an innocent person?
I ask because some of the people campaigning against RMS have already
disc
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> Taking the correction into account
*nod*
> What you've presented here is your word ("This
> accusation is outright false, beyond any possible doubt."),
True, I didn't claim to be offering evidence, and that didn't seem
necessary since all the su
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal reasons.
This accusation is outright false, beyond any po
I hereby announce my intent to offer online tutoring with the goal of
helping reduce democraphic imbalances in the GCC development community.
My planned focus is the implementation, in GCC, of the ISA extensions to
OpenPOWER in the upcoming Libre-SOC processor in GCC, but I may also
cover some n
Joseph,
On Mar 29, 2021, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This is based on the longstanding,
> well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women,
I have a great deal of respect for your attention to detail.
I can hardly believe you would make such a claim without having actually
looked int
On Mar 28, 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It shows we don't tolerate harassment in our project.
It shows we will favor and engage in harassment against a certain
demographic group, while pretending or believing it will somehow
make for a welcoming atmosphere.
> everybody I talked to about it had
On Mar 28, 2021, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Nathan posted today's followup.
Erhm... Nathan, please accept my apologies.
I misread someone else's message under the false impression
it had come from you.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist
Hello, Siddhesh,
Thanks for clarifying your understanding of Nathan's goal.
I may indeed have misread and mistaken Nathan's goal and means.
I thought the goal was to improve the GCC community by addressing the
gender imbalance, and that the means (misguided, IMHO) was to distance
ourselves from
On Mar 27, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> But listing his name on our web page as a leader of the project
> surely makes a difference to how the project is perceived.
You're probably right that it does, just maybe not quite in the way you
seem to perceive it.
The Free Software community is a lo
Nathan,
I think you identify an important problem of gender imbalance in our
community. It is quite likely that finding ways to make our community
more welcoming to demographic groups that are currently less present
than in the distribution in the global population could reduce this
imbalance.
H
40 matches
Mail list logo
