GCC Steering Committee attention, Re: [WIP 0/8] Algol 68 GCC Front-End

iciency in order to assess the feasibility of the task > and to get something working and suitable to be published. Therefore > there are many parts of the implementation that are crude and can be > made smarter, and places where I may have simply used the wrong > approach, out of

Pay attention to this warning!!Your Domain needs ownership Policy update!

Re: Please Take Attention To This BUG.

On 7 June 2017 at 08:38, 林作健 wrote: > I have found the cause of this bug. > In 5.3, the function strip_typedefs only use > result = cp_build_type_attribute_variant (result, TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t)); > but in 6.3 remove_attributes prediction get invovled: > if (TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t)) > { > if

Re: Please Take Attention To This BUG.

I have found the cause of this bug. In 5.3, the function strip_typedefs only use result = cp_build_type_attribute_variant (result, TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t)); but in 6.3 remove_attributes prediction get invovled: if (TYPE_ATTRIBUTES (t)) { if (remove_attributes) result = apply_identity_attrib

Please Take Attention To This BUG.

Hi, Please help me with the following bug. It's a blocker. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80986 Thanks. -- Lin Zuojian

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Jeff Law writes: >> We don't need to change the final approval step being from a >> maintainer to be able to spread the workload. > Amen. There's a few folks doing this right now outside their areas of > official maintainership and those comments are always very helpful to > me. > > And note tha

Re: GCC Commit Stats [was: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp [...]]

On 5 August 2016 at 19:26, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > I'd be happy to see my hypothesis disproved. Does it matter? There are lots of people contributing a few patches, and there are also a few people contributing lots of patches. Trying to prove or disprove a hypothesis about the health of the

Re: GCC Commit Stats [was: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp [...]]

On 5 August 2016 at 18:34, James Greenhalgh wrote: > I've given the 2012-2015 numbers below, just to show that (for the files > in gcc/*.[ch]) your hypothesis doesn't hold. The vast majority of > committers make <20 commits in a year. My hypothesis is that fewer people are increasingly doing mos

Re: GCC Commit Stats [was: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp [...]]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 04:38:30PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > I think those conclusions are debatable: I won't respond to all your points (I'm busy this evening), but I can regenerate my table with some of your suggestions. > * GCC has also grown over the years, there is a lot more cod

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/05/2016 10:27 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review system using Reitveld, but it did not catch on. And there were some before that :-) For Go development I have been using Gerrit, an instance hosted at Google (https://go-review.go

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

I'm not going to reply to any specific points, but I do want to comment that I've come to believe that e-mail based patch review is a problem. Unfortunately, I do not foresee the GCC maintainers moving away from it. I believe that Diego tried setting up an alternative patch review system using Re

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

ith that again.) >> >> At least half of the global reviewers in MAINTAINERS never review >> any patches. Most of them are not active any more and presumably do >> not read GCC emails. > > That's just false. Sorry, this was poorly phrased. I meant most of the half

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 08/04/2016 04:49 PM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Global Reviewers are welcome to review OpenACC/OpenMP/offloading patches. But that doesn't help if that's then not happening in reality. (With the exception of Bernd, who then did review such patches for a while, but also seems to have stopped with

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

eview I know it's already been looked at by someone else and passed a basic sanity check, and certain parts of the patch might be brought to my attention by the other person's comments. Or if the other commenter points out fatal flaws in the patch then it saves me spending any time on it

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 09:12:36PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > >I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away > >long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to. > >:-( > > You are a *paid* developer f

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

know it's already been looked at by someone else and passed a basic sanity check, and certain parts of the patch might be brought to my attention by the other person's comments. Or if the other commenter points out fatal flaws in the patch then it saves me spending any time on it, a

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 5 August 2016 at 12:16, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > - a "2-week rule"; if a patch by a reviewer goes unreviewed for 2 > weeks, the reviewer can commit it without review. A bit like your > option a). > > > The 2-week rule, in particular, came about due to frustration with > lack of reviews. Two we

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > At least half of the global reviewers in MAINTAINERS never review any > patches. Most of them are not active any more and presumably do not read GCC > emails. > > I'm not sure how to address this problem, but there is definitely a probl

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 22:01, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a >> criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help >> and how to improve the situation. For sure, everybody is doing the >> best that

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > Another question is how to help existing maintainers such that they > are more motivated to review patches. Is it a lack of time? lack of > Interest in the project? do patches simply fall through the cracks? is > it a dead-lock of people waiting for each other to comme

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a > criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help > and how to improve the situation. For sure, everybody is doing the > best that they can with the time that they have. You complaine

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:34, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: >> Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> >>> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, >> >> Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those? > > I don't see

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > >> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, > > Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those? I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a criticism of

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those?

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote: I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to. :-( You are a *paid* developer for one of the most active companies in the GCC community. Imagine how it feels f

[GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to test

Hi! Ping. It has now been more than three months (!) that I first submitted this, without receiving any meaningful review. (Apart from one initial "deprecative" comment by Jakub, which I then repeatedly detailed on, without receiving any further response.)

Attention

Hi, Am Robin Mullane, Cheif operating officer of Standard Bank, Please permit me to discuss an inheritance deal connected to your second name. Reply to: robinmulla...@gmail.com if interested for more details.

URGENT ATTENTION

Dear Sir On behalf of the board and management of Overseas Credit Commission(OCC). London UK, I Mr Ayo West, the Operations Manager wishes to inform you that your consignment/fund tagged diplomatic lugagge 122 with Ref:No1226/X42/206 which was deposited in our vault for safe keeping by a Diplomati