Re: Signing your git commits

> On Sep 16, 2024, at 8:13 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 1:37 PM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc > wrote: >> >> Git supports signing commits with a GPG key, and more recently (since >> Git 2.34) also started supporting signing with an SSH key. The latter >> is IMHO m

Re: How to target a processor with very primitive addressing modes?

> On Jun 10, 2024, at 11:48 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > > Am 08.06.24 um 11:32 schrieb Mikael Pettersson via Gcc: >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:59 PM Dimitar Dimitrov wrote: >>> Have you tried defining TARGET_LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS for your target? From >>> a quick search I see that the iq2

Re: How to target a processor with very primitive addressing modes?

> On Jun 10, 2024, at 4:47 AM, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > > * Jeff Law via Gcc: > >> If he's got a CC register exposed prior to LRA and LRA needs to insert >> any code, that inserted code may clobber the CC state. This is >> discussed in the reload-to-LRA transition wiki page. > > Do y

Re: How to target a processor with very primitive addressing modes?

> On Jun 8, 2024, at 1:12 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 6/8/24 10:45 AM, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >>> On Jun 8, 2024, at 5:32 AM, Mikael Pettersson via Gcc >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:59 PM Dimitar Dimitrov wrote: >

Re: How to target a processor with very primitive addressing modes?

> On Jun 8, 2024, at 5:32 AM, Mikael Pettersson via Gcc wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 8:59 PM Dimitar Dimitrov wrote: >> Have you tried defining TARGET_LEGITIMIZE_ADDRESS for your target? From >> a quick search I see that the iq2000 and rx backends are rewriting some >> PLUS expression ad

Re: How to avoid some built-in expansions in gcc?

> On May 31, 2024, at 11:06 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > > > Am 31.05.24 um 17:00 schrieb Paul Koning: >>> On May 31, 2024, at 9:52 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> >>> What's the recommended way to stop built-in expansions in gcc? >>> >>> For example, avr-gcc expands isinff() to a bloa

Re: How to avoid some built-in expansions in gcc?

> On May 31, 2024, at 9:52 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > > What's the recommended way to stop built-in expansions in gcc? > > For example, avr-gcc expands isinff() to a bloated version of an isinff() > implementation that's written in asm (PR115307). > > Johann Isn't that up to the target

Re: [committed] PATCH for Re: Stepping down as maintainer for ARC and Epiphany

> On May 21, 2024, at 9:57 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 5/21/24 12:05 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: >> On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 4:45 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2023, Joern Rennecke wrote: I haven't worked with these targets in years and can't really do se

Re: [RFC] Linux system call builtins

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 9:48 PM, Matheus Afonso Martins Moreira via Gcc > wrote: > > ... > MIPS calling conventions work like this: > >> mips/n32,64 a0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 >> mips/o32a0 a1 a2 a3 ... >> mips/o32args5-8 are passed on the stack Yes, for regular function calls, but at least in

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

> On Apr 9, 2024, at 3:59 PM, Jonathon Anderson via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024, 10:57 Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> On Apr 09 2024, anderson.jonath...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> - This xz backdoor injection unpacked attacker-controlled files and ran >> them during `configure`. Newer build

Re: [RFC] Linux system call builtins

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 4:01 PM, Paul Iannetta via Gcc wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 11:26:40AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 11:20 AM Paul Iannetta via Gcc >> wrote: >>> ... >> Also do you sign or zero extend a 32bit argument for LP64 targets? >> Right now it is no

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 2:04 PM, Toon Moene wrote: > > On 4/1/24 17:06, Mark Wielaard wrote: > >> A big thanks to everybody working this long Easter weekend who helped >> analyze the xz-backdoor and making sure the impact on Sourceware and >> the hosted projects was minimal. > > Thanks for thos

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

> On Apr 3, 2024, at 10:00 AM, Michael Matz wrote: > > Hello, > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > Seems reasonable, but note that it wouldn't make any difference to this attack. The liblzma library was modified to corrupt the sshd binary, when sshd was link

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

> On Apr 2, 2024, at 6:08 PM, Guinevere Larsen wrote: > > On 4/2/24 16:54, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> On 4/1/24 09:06, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>> A big thanks to everybody working this long Easter weekend who helped >>> analyze the xz-backdoor and making sure the impact on Sourceware and >>> the

Re: Sourceware mitigating and preventing the next xz-backdoor

> On Apr 2, 2024, at 4:03 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > > On 4/2/24 12:54, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> Do we to harden our process, too, to require all patches to be signed off by >> someone else before committing? > > It's easy for an attacker to arrange to have "someone else" in cahoots. > > Al

Re: Odd Python errors in the G++ testsuite

> On Oct 9, 2023, at 7:42 PM, Ben Boeckel via Gcc wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 20:12:01 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >> I'm seeing these tracebacks for several cases across the G++ testsuite: >> >> Executing on host: python3 -c "import sys; assert sys.version_info >= (3, >> 6)"(

Re: Complex numbers in compilers - upcoming GNU Tools Cauldron.

> On Sep 12, 2023, at 7:12 AM, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > > Am Dienstag, dem 12.09.2023 um 11:25 +0200 schrieb Richard Biener via Gcc: >>> ... >> >> Lack of applications / benchmarks using complex numbers is also a >> problem for any work on this. > > I could probably provide some exampl

Re: Unexpected behavior of gcc on pointer dereference & increment

> On Sep 1, 2023, at 12:35 PM, Tomas Bortoli via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > I recently discovered that the following C statement: > > pointer++; > > is semantically equivalent to the following: > > *pointer++; > > Is this due to operators' priority? To me, that looks weird. Yes, https://en.c

Re: Porting to a custom ISA

> On Aug 15, 2023, at 8:49 AM, MegaIng wrote: > > > On Aug 15, 2023, at 7:37 AM, Paul Koning wrote: > >> >>> On Aug 15, 2023, at 7:37 AM, MegaIng via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> Also, on another backend I saw comments relating to libgcc (or newlib?) not >>> working that well on systems wh

Re: Porting to a custom ISA

> On Aug 15, 2023, at 8:06 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 1:38 PM MegaIng via Gcc wrote: >> ... >> And a bit more concrete with something I am having a hard time >> debugging. I am getting errors `invalid_void`, seemingly triggered by an >> absent of `gen_return

Re: Porting to a custom ISA

> On Aug 15, 2023, at 7:37 AM, MegaIng via Gcc wrote: > > ... > Also, on another backend I saw comments relating to libgcc (or newlib?) not > working that well on systems where int is 16bit. Is that still true, and what > is the best workaround? I haven't seen that comment and it doesn't ma

Re: Where to place warning about non-optimized tail and sibling calls

I'm puzzled. The fundamental rule of optimization is that it doesn't change the (defined) semantics of the program. How is it possible to write valid C that is correct only if some optimization is done? In other words, if it matters whether an optimization is done or not, that suggests to me

Re: LRA for avr: help with FP and elimination

> On Jul 27, 2023, at 7:50 AM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Jul 2023, Vladimir Makarov via Gcc wrote: > >>> On the avr, the stack pointer (SP) >>> is not used to access stack slots >> It is very uncommon target then. > > Same with the VAX target. SP is used for outgoing functi

Re: abi

Because implementing an ABI, or dealing with an incompatibnle change, is hard work. Also, ABI stability means that old binaries work. So ABI stability isn't so much a requirement for the compiler as it is a requirement for any sane operating system. An OS that changes ABI without an extremely

Re: abi

It does, for machine architectures that have multiple ABIs. MIPS is an example where GCC has supported this for at least 20 years. paul > On Jul 6, 2023, at 5:19 PM, André Albergaria Coelho via Gcc > wrote: > > Could gcc have an option to specify ABI? > > say > > > gcc something.c

Re: Will GCC eventually learn to use BSR or even TZCNT on AMD/Intel processors?

> On Jun 5, 2023, at 8:09 PM, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 01:59:42 +0200 > Gabriel Ravier wrote: > >> [nothing of value] > > If this guy's threads are such a terrible waste of your time, how about > employing your email client's filters to ignore his posts (and mine too) a

Re: End of subscription

> On May 23, 2023, at 10:08 PM, LIU Hao via Gcc wrote: > > 在 2023/5/19 20:59, Florian Weimer via Gcc 写道: >> * Jonathan Wakely via Gcc: >>> Unfortunately even the Gmail web UI doesn't offer an unsubscribe >>> option, despite knowing the mails come from a list and showing: >>> >>> mailing list:

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

> On May 10, 2023, at 10:39 AM, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > >> ... >> Sweeping problems under the carpet and hoping no one trips over the >> bumps is, at best, pushing problems down the road for future developers. > > I'm not sweeping anything. This is not GCC's problem to solve, that's

Re: I have questions regarding the 4.3 codebase...

> On Mar 23, 2023, at 10:13 AM, Sid Maxwell via Gcc wrote: > > Thanks for reaching out, Julian, I greatly appreciate your help. Please > forgive and over- or under-sharing. If I've left something out, please let > me know. > > From my pdp10.md: > > ;; JIRA sw_gcc-68. gcc recognizes the "m

Re: LRA produces RTL not meeting constraint

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 7:38 PM, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: > > > >> On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:52 PM, Segher Boessenkool >> wrote: >> >> Hi Paul, >> >> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 02:39:34PM -0500, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >>> In

Re: LRA produces RTL not meeting constraint

> On Jan 11, 2023, at 2:52 PM, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 02:39:34PM -0500, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >> In pdp11.md I have: >> >> (define_insn_and_split "addhi3" >> [(set (match_operand:HI 0 &

LRA produces RTL not meeting constraint

In pdp11.md I have: (define_insn_and_split "addhi3" [(set (match_operand:HI 0 "nonimmediate_operand" "=rR,rR,Q,Q") (plus:HI (match_operand:HI 1 "general_operand" "%0,0,0,0") (match_operand:HI 2 "general_operand" "rRLM,Qi,rRLM,Qi")))] "" "#" "reload_completed" [(p

Re: Widening multiplication, but no narrowing division [i386/AMD64]

> On Jan 9, 2023, at 11:27 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > > "Paul Koning" wrote: > >>> ... > >> Yes, I was thinking the same. But I spent a while on that pattern -- I >> wanted to support div/mod as a single operation because the machine has >> that primitive. And I'm pretty sure I saw it wo

struct vs. class in GCC source

Building on Mac with Clang I get warnings like this: ../../../gcc/gcc/cgraph.h:2629:28: warning: struct 'cgraph_edge' was previously declared as a class; this is valid, but may result in linker errors under the Microsoft C++ ABI [-Wmismatched-tags] It seems to be talking about a MS bug (since C

Re: Widening multiplication, but no narrowing division [i386/AMD64]

> On Jan 9, 2023, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > > "Paul Koning" wrote: > >>> On Jan 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> GCC (and other C compilers too) support the widening multiplication >>> of i386/AMD64 processors, but DON'T support their narrowing div

Re: Widening multiplication, but no narrowing division [i386/AMD64]

> On Jan 9, 2023, at 7:20 AM, Stefan Kanthak wrote: > > Hi, > > GCC (and other C compilers too) support the widening multiplication > of i386/AMD64 processors, but DON'T support their narrowing division: I wonder if this changed in the recent past. I have a pattern for this type of thing i

Re: [BUG] missing warning for pointer arithmetic out of bounds

> On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:08 PM, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc > wrote: > > Hi! > > For the following program: > > >$ cat buf.c >#include > >int main(void) >{ >char *p, buf[5]; > >p = buf + 6; >printf("%p\n", p); >} > > > There are no warnings in

Re: Good grief Charlie Brown

> On Dec 13, 2022, at 2:09 PM, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > Since my response did not get posted (maybe one of the words wasn't allowed? > or because I attached binaries?) here it is again: > ... I'm puzzled. What is your purpose? What result do you expect from your messages? What action wo

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 11:42 AM, Arnaud Charlet via Gcc wrote: > > >>> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: >>> >>> GNAT >>> In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compiler >>> (GCC version 5.1 or later). >>> >>> so, if 5.1 i

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 11:52 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > >> On 26 Nov 2022, at 16:42, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> >> The current statement (https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html) is: GNAT In order to build GNAT, the Ada compiler, you need a working GNAT compile

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 10:58 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > I am part way through the exercise on both macOS 11 (X86) and 12 (Arm64). > > ** However, I am using gcc-7.5 as the bootstrap compiler, not gcc-5.1. I'm not using 5.1 -- I only quoted that version number because the install

Re: GNU = Junkware

> On Nov 26, 2022, at 4:20 AM, Dave Blanchard wrote: > > No, I'm not trolling, just venting here for a moment. So sick of garbage ass, > crusty junkware that's always a battle to the death to accomplish anything. I don't know who you are or why you feel a need to spew obscenities on the GCC

Re: Can't build Ada

wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Paul Koning via Gcc >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm trying to use fairly recent GCC sources (the gcc-darwin branch to be >>>>> precise) to build Ada, starting with

Re: Can't build Ada

> On Nov 25, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 11:59 AM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >> >> I'm trying to use fairly recent GCC sources (the gcc-darwin branch to be >> precise) to build Ada, starting with the latest (2020)

Can't build Ada

I'm trying to use fairly recent GCC sources (the gcc-darwin branch to be precise) to build Ada, starting with the latest (2020) release of Gnat from Adacore. It fails for several reasons. One is that two source files use [ ] for array initializer brackets when ( ) is apparently supposed to be

Re: clarification question

> On Oct 22, 2022, at 2:38 PM, Marc Glisse via Gcc wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2022, Péntek Imre via Gcc wrote: > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html >> >> by "Architecture does not have a single condition code register" do you mean >> it has none or do you mean it has multiple? > > Either.

Re: Possible C++ method signature warning feature?

> On Aug 10, 2022, at 9:25 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:20 PM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >> >> There's a C++ problem I keep running into, in a very large body of software >> with lots of subclassing. >> >> There&#x

Possible C++ method signature warning feature?

There's a C++ problem I keep running into, in a very large body of software with lots of subclassing. There's a base class that defines a set of interface methods, not all pure virtual (some define the default behavior). A number of subclasses override some but not all of these. Now I find my

Re: Signed vs. unsigned compares

> On Jun 17, 2022, at 11:51 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > On Jun 17 2022, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: > >> In expanding a longer-than-word compare, I need to do things differently >> depending on whether a signed vs. unsigned compare is needed. But it seems >>

Signed vs. unsigned compares

Question for target code: In expanding a longer-than-word compare, I need to do things differently depending on whether a signed vs. unsigned compare is needed. But it seems the compare operation applies to either. How can I do this in the target code? paul

Switch statement optimization

In switch statements with dense case values, the typical result is a jump table, which is fast. If the values are sparse, a tree of compares is generated instead. What if nearly all cases are dense but there are a few outliers? An example appears in the NFS protocol parser, where you get a sw

Re: Benchmark recommendations needed

> On Feb 22, 2022, at 4:26 PM, Gary Oblock via Gcc wrote: > > Andras, > > The whole point of benchmarks is to judge a processor's performance. > That being said, just crippling GCC is not reasonable because > processors must be judged in the appropriate context and that > includes the current

Re: reordering of trapping operations and volatile

> On Jan 15, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > > On 1/14/22 07:58, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >>> On Jan 14, 2022, at 9:15 AM, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>> But right now that's equivalent to making it obser

Re: reordering of trapping operations and volatile

> On Jan 14, 2022, at 9:15 AM, Michael Matz via Gcc wrote: > > Hello, > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2022, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Handling all volatile accesses in the very same way would be > possible but quite some work I don't see much value in. I see some value. But

Re: Help with an ABI peculiarity

> On Jan 7, 2022, at 4:06 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > In the aarch64 Darwin ABI we have an unusual (OK, several unusual) feature of > the calling convention. > > When an argument is passed *in a register* and it is integral and less than > SI it is promoted (with appropriate s

Re: __builtin_addc support??

> On Oct 27, 2021, at 12:12 PM, sotrdg sotrdg via Gcc wrote: > > 79173 – add-with-carry and subtract-with-borrow support (x86_64 and others) > (gnu.org) > > What I find quite interesting is things like this. > > Since llvm clang provides _

Re: Developer branches

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: > >> Some questions about developer branches: >> >> 1. Who may create one? Who may write to them? >> 2. Are they required to be listed in https://gcc

Re: Developer branches

> On Sep 15, 2021, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 21:12, Paul Koning via Gcc wrote: >> >> Some questions about developer branches: >> >> 1. Who may create one? Who may write to them? >> 2. Are they required to be list

Developer branches

Some questions about developer branches: 1. Who may create one? Who may write to them? 2. Are they required to be listed in https://gcc.gnu.org/git.html ? I notice it mentioned a whole pile of them, most of which don't seem to exist. It's a bit confusing since this seems to be a concept that i

Re: Optional machine prefix for programs in for -B dirs, matching Clang

> On Aug 4, 2021, at 3:32 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, 08:26 John Ericson wrote: > >> Problem: >> >> It's somewhat annoying to have to tell GCC --with-as=... --with-ld=... >> just to prefix those commands the same way GCC is prefixed. >> > > Doesn't GCC automa

Re: GCC 10.2: undefined reference to vtable: missing its key function

> On Jun 6, 2021, at 5:41 PM, Paul Smith wrote: > > I have a class which is NOT, as far as I can see, polymorphic. > > It doesn't inherit from any other class and none of its methods are > declared virtual. The class implementation and all its callers all > compile just fine. > > Is there s

Re: RFC: New mechanism for hard reg operands to inline asm

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 2:02 PM, Andreas Krebbel via Gcc wrote: > > Hi, > > I wonder if we could replace the register asm construct for > inline assemblies with something a bit nicer and more obvious. > E.g. turning this (real world example from IBM Z kernel code): > > int diag8_response(int cm

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: > >> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation, >> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate. > > And copyright notices naming "The GNU Toolchain Aut

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:40 AM Paul Koning wrote: >> >>> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: >>> >>> The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation, >>> Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchai

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

> On Jun 1, 2021, at 11:08 AM, Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:52 AM D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote: > >> | From: Mark Wielaard >> >> | This seems a pretty bad policy to be honest. >> | Why was there no public discussion on this? >> >> Agreed. I also agree with the r

Re: Update to GCC copyright assignment policy

> On Jun 1, 2021, at 10:31 AM, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote: > > The copyright author will be listed as "Free Software Foundation, > Inc." and/or "The GNU Toolchain Authors", as appropriate. What does that mean? FSF is a well defined organization. "The GNU Toolchain Authors" sounds like on

Re: On US corporate influence over Free Software and the GCC Steering Committee

> On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:22 AM, David Starner via Gcc wrote: > > Giacomo Tesio wrote: >> ... >> Please, do not create a hostile environment for indipendent contributors. > > What do you mean by independent? If you're independently wealthy and > don't need to work, you can avoid this. If you're

Re: A suggestion for going forward from the RMS/FSF debate

> On Apr 16, 2021, at 2:41 PM, NightStrike via Gcc wrote: > >> ... > > I was under the (likely incorrect, please enlighten me) impression > that the meteoric rise of LLVM had more to do with the license > allowing corporate contributors to ship derived works in binary form > without sharing p

Re: removing toxic emailers

> On Apr 15, 2021, at 7:44 PM, Frosku wrote: > > On Fri Apr 16, 2021 at 12:36 AM BST, Christopher Dimech wrote: >> >> The commercial use of free software is our hope, not our fear. When >> people >> at IBM began to come to free software, wanting to recommend it and use >> it, >> and maybe dis

Re: removing toxic emailers

> On Apr 15, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > ... > responding in general to this part of the thread. > > * The GCC environment is not hostile, and has not been for the 15 or so > years I’ve been part of the community. Glad to see you feel that way; my view matches yours. > * We wo

Re: removing toxic emailers

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 5:38 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:49 PM Paul Koning wrote: >> >>> ... >> >> This is why I asked the question "who decides?" Given a disagreement in >> which the proposed remedy is to ostracise a participant, it is necessary to >> inquire

Re: removing toxic emailers

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 4:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:08 AM Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: >> >> once or twice when physical violence with threatened, but that's about >> it (aside from spammers). I don't think we want to get too deep into >> moderation and t

Re: removing toxic emailers

> On Apr 14, 2021, at 2:19 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > > On 4/14/21 12:52 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >> Hi Nathan, >> On Wed, Apr 14 2021, Nathan Sidwell wrote: >>> Do we have a policy about removing list subscribers that send abusive or >>> other toxic emails? do we have a code of conduct? Se

Re: GCC association with the FSF

> On Apr 9, 2021, at 2:27 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt via Gcc wrote: > > These discussions are slightly off topic for gcc@, I'd suggest they > are moved to gnu-misc-discuss@ or some other more suitable list. More than "slightly", in my view. I'm close to putting this thread into my "send straight

Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee

I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these general questions. 1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members, possibly different ones depending on which level of the organization you're in? 2. Is there a formal process for receiving claims of in

Re: 4.2 source

> On Jun 9, 2020, at 10:02 AM, James Dugan > wrote: > > Hello, > This is a long shot, but is there any archive of the 4.2 source code? I need > a build for a rhel5.4 server to support a p2v migration. I checked the > successful builds page and see that this version of rhel was not done for

Re: AVR CC0 transition

> On Apr 22, 2020, at 10:11 PM, Senthil Kumar via Gcc wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:08 PM Jeff Law wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2020-04-22 at 22:01 +0530, Senthil Kumar via Gcc wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'm thinking about attempting to do the CC0 transition for the >>> AVR port in my spare tim