On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 3:40 PM NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, 11:27 Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> > E.g. with Ada it is possible to port to a new platform by first building a
> > cross-compiler and then to use that cross-compiler to build a “native
> > cross” (build != host == tar
Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> And while this is IBM, the other US corporations with affiliations in
the Steering Committee are no better:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235777.html
> I can understand that some of you consider working for such corporations "a
> joy".
> But for the rest of u
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:50 PM, David Starner wrote:
>> We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejected in favor of a
>> hypothetical patch, and years down the road, the program still has the
>> problem.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> "We" is the GCC community. "We" really want multilibs to be built so
> they get tested as much as possible. It's in the best interest of
> all GCC users that this happens.
"We" really want Ada to be built so that it gets tested as much as
Sorry about the blank message; I accidentally hit the wrong button.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> It was "This is possible, but it's tricky, and it's really important
> to get it right. We don't want a half-arsed patch."
We've all seen cases where a quick patch is rejec
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 07/29/2013 02:55 PM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> There should be a better diagnostic.
>>
>> If you remember, the start of this thread was:
>>
>>> Why is it that configure worked but stub
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> It's not "some random package" it's the C library, and it is needed to
> compile 32-bit C programs.
It's not libc6. It's not even libc6-dev. It's libc6-dev-i386. Debian
Popularity Contest says that 84315 out of 147631 are AMD64; 99980
sys
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> GCC can detect at configure time that it will fail. It is clearly
> a computable problem. It's a matter of someone doing it rather than
> insisting that the world should change to suit them.
GCC 4.8.1 will fail to compile on x86_64-unknown-
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 11:51 PM, David Starner wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with
>>> a real workload looks like.
>&g
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Not at all: we're just disagreeing about what a real system with
> a real workload looks like.
No, we aren't. We're disagreeing about whether it's acceptable to
enable a feature by default that breaks the compiler build half way
through with
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> I would just install GCC's build dependencies and build with the
> defaults.
I'm glad you have infinite hard-drive space. I rather wish fewer
developers did, as well as those infinitely fast computers they seem
to have; perhaps they would hav
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 07/24/2013 01:48 AM, David Starner wrote:
>> I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
>> have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
>> building primar
I'd like to mention that I too was bit by this one on Debian. I don't
have a 32-bit development environment installed; why would I? I'm
building primarily for myself, and if I did have to target a 32-bit
environment, I'd likely have to mess with more stuff then just the
compiler. If you can't find
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 04:18:44 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are we a bit too obedient today? Look I was talking about the paper
> presented
> above not about the author there of.
Since we're getting personal, you've been terse, hostile and
dismissive this entire thread, and it h
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:24:35 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2005-03-08, at 02:55, Ronny Peine wrote:
>
> > Maybe i found something:
> >
> > http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/ieee754.ps
> > page 9 says:
>
> Lot's of opinions few hard arguments... I see there
The Wiki only mentions the C front-end. Is this going to require any
back-end changes? Is there going to be any work done to make this work
well with Ada (which already has decimal floating point), to make
decimal floating-point values be passable between C and Ada functions?
16 matches
Mail list logo
