Hi!
Thanks for all the hard work maintaining all this fundamental infrastructure.
On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 18:00, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi hackers,
>
> TLDR; When using https://patchwork.sourceware.org or Bunsen
> https://builder.sourceware.org/testruns/ you might now have to enable
> javascrip
Hi,
Following "popular request", we are happy to announce that users can
now request to skip Linaro CI precommit testing for some patches.
The current implementation skips testing in two cases:
1- there is [RFC] or [RFC v[0-9]] in the patch subject
2- the commit message contains a line starting w
Hi Ramana,
On 9/26/24 19:22, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed
Christophe Lyon as a MVE Reviewer for the AArch32 port.
Please join me in congratulating Christophe on his new role.
Christophe, please update your listings in the M
Hi,
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 10:15, FX Coudert wrote:
>
> > I regenerate auto* files from time to time for libgfortran. Regenerating
> > them has always been very fragile (using --enable-maintainer-mode),
> > and difficult to get right.
>
> I have never found them difficult to regenerate, but if yo
Hi,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 15:19, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:32, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/)
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 15:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> Dear release managers and developers,
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precom
Hi Mark,
On 4/4/24 23:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Christophe,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
that we now include
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten better but before the
> rework on its Makefile/configure, I ha
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 12:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
> >>>
> >>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Dear release managers and developers,
> >
> > TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> > workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> > that
Dear release managers and developers,
TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1] (2024-03
On 3/27/24 20:07, Joel Sherrill wrote:
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 3:53 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>> wrote:
Hi!
On 3/26/24 22:52, Joel Sherrill via Gcc wrote:
> Hi
>
> For RTEMS, we normally build a multilib'ed gcc+newlib
Hi!
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 at 15:19, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:32, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/)
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 16:42, Jens Remus wrote:
>
> Am 15.03.2024 um 09:50 schrieb Christophe Lyon:
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >> On 2024-03-13 04:02, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> ...
> >> There's just the issue of files that are generated using tools that are
> >
Hi!
On 3/26/24 22:52, Joel Sherrill via Gcc wrote:
Hi
For RTEMS, we normally build a multilib'ed gcc+newlib, but I have a case
where the CPU model is something not covered by our multilibs and not one
we are keen to add. I've looked around but not found anything that makes me
feel confident.
W
On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 15:32, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >
> > On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/) is a bit
> > > more complex
> > > than just calling automake. IIUC it calls
On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 at 16:34, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
> On 3/18/24 13:25, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Well the rule to regenerate Makefile.in (eg in in opcodes/) is a bit
> > more complex
> > than just calling automake. IIUC it calls automake --foreign it any of
> > *.m4 file from $(am__configure_dep
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 18:25, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 at 18:16, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2024-03-15 04:50, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > >> My first thought it: why is it a Makefile target, ins
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 15:25, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> > "Eric" == Eric Gallager writes:
>
> Eric> Also there are the files generated by cgen, too, which no one seems to
> Eric> know how to regenerate, either.
>
> I thought I sent out some info on this a while ago.
>
> Anyway what I do is make a
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 at 18:16, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-03-15 04:50, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >> My first thought it: why is it a Makefile target, instead of some script
> >> on the side (like autoregen.sh). It would be nice
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 at 15:13, Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 4:53 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2024-03-13 04:02, Christophe Lyo
On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:10, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024-03-13 04:02, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > After recent discussions on IRC and on the lists about maintainer-mode
> > and various problems with auto-generated source files, I've written
> > this small prototype.
> >
Hi!
After recent discussions on IRC and on the lists about maintainer-mode
and various problems with auto-generated source files, I've written
this small prototype.
Based on those discussions, I assumed that people generally want to
update autotools files using a script similar to autoregen.py, w
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 16:41, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>
>
>
> On 04/03/2024 15:36, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> > On 04/03/2024 14:46, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >>>
> >>> O
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:44, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:36, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > On 2024-03
Hi!
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 10:36, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2024-03-04T00:30:05+, Sam James wrote:
> > Mark Wielaard writes:
> >> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 05:32:15PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> [...], I read
> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Regenerating_GCC_Configuration
> >
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 14:08, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 18:39 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:00, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > That python script works across gcc/binutils/gdb:
> > > https://sourceware.org/cgit/builder/tree/builder/
On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 at 14:08, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Thu, 2024-02-29 at 18:39 +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:00, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > > That python script works across gcc/binutils/gdb:
> > > https://sourceware.org/cgit/builder/tree/builder/
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 20:49, Thiago Jung Bauermann
wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Christophe Lyon writes:
>
> > I hoped improving this would be as simple as adding
> > --enable-maintainer-mode when configuring, after making sure
> > autoconf-2.69 and automake-1.15.1 were in the PATH (using our host's
>
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 12:00, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 11:22:33AM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> > I've noticed that sourceware's buildbot has a small script
> > "autoregen.py" which does not use the
On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 at 11:41, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
wrote:
>
> On 29/02/2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > Sorry for cross-posting, but I'm not sure the rules/guidelines are the
> > same in gcc vs binutils/gdb.
> >
> > TL
Hi!
Sorry for cross-posting, but I'm not sure the rules/guidelines are the
same in gcc vs binutils/gdb.
TL;DR: are there some guidelines about how to use/enable maintainer-mode?
In the context of the Linaro CI, I've been looking at enabling
maintainer-mode at configure time in our configurations
On Tue, 7 Nov 2023 at 15:36, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Nov 07 2023, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
> n>> On Nov 6, 2023, at 21:19, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I have inherited Martin L
Hi!
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 at 18:05, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have inherited Martin Liška's buildbot script that checks that all
> sorts of autotools generated files, mainly configure scripts, were
> re-generated correctly when appropriate. While the checks are hopefully
> useful, they
Hi!
The config/dfp.m4 file does not have a license header. Several other .m4
files in the same directory have a GPL header, many others do not.
Can someone confirm the license of dfp.m4 and add the missing header if
applicable?
Thanks!
Christophe
On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 14:35, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 10.3 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10.3.0-RC-20210401/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 14:12, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:50, Christophe Lyon
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/23/20 2:54 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > > >>
> >
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:50, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > On 9/23/20 2:54 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 20
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 14:33, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 8:26 AM Christophe Lyon via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrot
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:33, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 9/23/20 2:54 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 12:26, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 23/09/2020 11:20, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 10:22:52AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> So that would give:
> >>
> >> Results for 8.4.1 20200918 [r8-10517] on arm-none-linux-gnueabihf
> >>
> >> and ho
On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 01:47, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 9/22/20 9:15 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Christophe,
> >>
> >> While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results
> >> for various flavors of arm that at hi
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 17:02, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Hi Christophe,
>
> While checking recent test results I noticed many posts with results
> for various flavors of arm that at high level seem like duplicates
> of one another.
>
> For example, the batch below all have the same title, but not all
Hi,
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 03:58, Rob Savoye wrote:
>
> On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>
> > I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for
> > DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes
> > many hours to go through these testsui
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 22:40, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On May 27, 2020, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 16:26, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
> >> Any thoughts on the massive breakage on the embedded ports in the
> >> testsuite?
>
On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 16:26, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:16 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > Hello, David,
> >
> > On May 26, 2020, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > > Complaints about -dA, -dD, -dumpbase, etc.
> >
> > This was the main symptom of the problem fixed in the f
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 13:28, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2020 17:43, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > As you may know, I've been running validations of GCC trunk in many
> > configurations for Arm and Aarch64.
> >
> &
On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:44, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads.
> >
> > On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Comparing DejaGnu
Hi,
As you may know, I've been running validations of GCC trunk in many
configurations for Arm and Aarch64.
I was recently trying to make some cleanup in the new Bfloat16, MVE, CDE, and
ACLE tests because in several configurations I see 300-400 FAILs
mainly in these areas, because of “testisms”
49 matches
Mail list logo
