On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Quentin Neill wrote:
> The OS dependencies needed to build are another thing - it seems it
> could be better automated (we keep a list of packages per distro to
> install when setting up a system to build GCC).
What we discussed for that in London was documenting the
distrib
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Thanks. I fixed this yesterday. Reload?
Aren't we trying to get rid of that? ;-)
SCNR,
Gerald
On 12 December 2011 21:54, Quentin Neill wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>>
>>> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
>>> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document a
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>>
>> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
>> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document and didn't see
>> this, but it is worth mentioning).
>>
>>
On 12 December 2011 21:13, Quentin Neill wrote:
>
> I think an improvement could be made in automated downloading of GCC
> and dependencies (I looked in the wiki and the document and didn't see
> this, but it is worth mentioning).
>
> Any script (and new users as well) must understand which depende
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> At the last developer's meeting in London, Joseph and I agreed to work
> on an architectural definition for GCC. We now have something that,
> while incomplete, should be enough to discuss.
>
> Our main intent is to define new conventions and
On 12/07/11 22:20, 陳韋任 wrote:
However, it is true that some patches are not in that category. In
general, we prefer to keep patch traffic in a single place
(gcc-patches@), but we use message tagging extensively. How about
'[trivial]'?
If reviwer can pick up trivial patches easily by this w
> However, it is true that some patches are not in that category. In
> general, we prefer to keep patch traffic in a single place
> (gcc-patches@), but we use message tagging extensively. How about
> '[trivial]'?
If reviwer can pick up trivial patches easily by this way, I have no
objection
On 12/07/11 03:52, 陳韋任 wrote:
Hi Diego,
For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
online. The document is at
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
I am looking at "Developer tools - Patch submission and review". I
On 12/07/11 04:39, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Diego Novillo a écrit:
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
3. Debugging. [...] the compiler would show a stuck dump [...]
Maybe you meant a stack dump?
Thanks. I fixed this yesterday. Reload
Diego Novillo a écrit:
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
3. Debugging. [...] the compiler would show a stuck dump [...]
Maybe you meant a stack dump?
--
Dodji
Hi Diego,
> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
> online. The document is at
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
I am looking at "Developer tools - Patch submission and review". I have been
working on QEMU for
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 17:54, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
>> online. The document is at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
>> online. The document is at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vx
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 15:49:07 -0500
Diego Novillo wrote:
> For the time being, however, it is easier for me to edit the document
> online. The document is at
> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ZfyfkB62EFaR4_g4JKm4--guz3vxm9pciOBziMHTnK4
Should we edit the document (I don't dare doing tha
At the last developer's meeting in London, Joseph and I agreed to work
on an architectural definition for GCC. We now have something that,
while incomplete, should be enough to discuss.
Our main intent is to define new conventions and guidelines that will
simplify GCC development. The document i
16 matches
Mail list logo
