On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I see plugins as a new feature for GCC developers. There is little
> value in announcing "we have plugin support" to our users if you can't
> name at least one that is supported out-of-the-box (and obviously we
> don't support plugins at all).
Our
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Dave Korn wrote:
> But I agree with this: a release announcement is just an email someone
> sends out after a new release is uploaded, it is not a major PR effort
Let's not underestimate the effect our releases have in terms of PR
and how much GCC actually is in need of PR.
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 08:44:32PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Have you built gcc trunk with --enable-plugin on either
> > Solaris or Irix? What is the expectation of which compiler is
>
> No need: plugins just work on both platforms, both with the vendor tools
> a
Jack Howarth writes:
>Have you built gcc trunk with --enable-plugin on either
> Solaris or Irix? What is the expectation of which compiler is
No need: plugins just work on both platforms, both with the vendor tools
and gld (on Solaris, gld is currently broken for IRIX).
> I find on Irix 6.
Steven Bosscher writes:
>> This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
>> either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
>> work.
>
> And objdump does work on Solaris / IRIX?
Sure: all plugin tests pass on both platforms, and objdump is used by
the
Marc Glisse writes:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>> This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
>> either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
>> work.
>
> Uh? From what I can find, solaris 7 already had nm -D, and so do all later
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:38:18AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> > Index: configure.ac
> > ===
> > --- configure.ac(revision 158487)
> > +++ configure.ac(working copy)
> > @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010, Rainer Orth wrote:
This is wrong at least on Solaris and IRIX, which don't have nm -D
either. Please restrict use of nm -D to platforms where it is known to
work.
Uh? From what I can find, solaris 7 already had nm -D, and so do all later
versions.
http://docs.sun.com/ap
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
>> Index: configure.ac
>> ===
>> --- configure.ac (revision 158487)
>> +++ configure.ac (working copy)
>> @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @@
>> pluginl
Jack Howarth writes:
> Index: configure.ac
> ===
> --- configure.ac(revision 158487)
> +++ configure.ac(working copy)
> @@ -4456,15 +4456,27 @@
> pluginlibs=
> if test x"$enable_plugin" = x"yes"; then
>
> + if te
On 22/04/2010 09:16, Kai Ruottu wrote:
> Whatever the 'objdump -T' now tries to do during the
> 'gcc/configure', that it does with the wrong 'objdump',
> that for the $target, not that for the $host !
>
> Maybe there was some usual one-eyeness in implementation,
> in a native GCC $host == $target
22.4.2010 1:35, Andreas Schwab kirjoitti:
Paolo Bonzini writes:
I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
$ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
$ objdump -T /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so|head -5
The equivalent of "objdump -T" is "nm -D".
Whatev
> This revised patch builds plugin support fine on x86_64-apple-darwin10 and
> x86_64 Fedora 10...
Ok for trunk and 4.5 branch after a few days.
Paolo
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 01:39:21AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Paolo,
> > We don't have -D in our nm. How about the following change to
> > configure.ac?
>
> Ok. See? ;-)
>
> As a followup, if you have access to a Linux machine you can try
> removing the objdump requirement altogether.
>
> Paolo,
> We don't have -D in our nm. How about the following change to
> configure.ac?
Ok. See? ;-)
As a followup, if you have access to a Linux machine you can try
removing the objdump requirement altogether.
(Thanks Eric too).
Paolo
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:44:42AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 00:35, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Paolo Bonzini writes:
> >
> >> I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
> >>
> >> $ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
> >> nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 00:35, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
>>>
>>> $ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
>>> nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
>>>
>>> $ objdu
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 00:35, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
>>
>> $ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
>> nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
>>
>> $ objdump -T /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so|head -5
>
> The equivalent of "obj
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
>
> $ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
> nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
>
> $ objdump -T /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so|head -5
The equivalent of "objdump -T" is "nm -D".
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m
On 04/21/2010 07:51 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I'm not sure if "nm -g" would work under Linux, since
$ nm -g /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so
nm: /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: no symbols
$ objdump -T /usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so|head -5
/usr/lib64/libsqlite3.so: file format elf64-x86-64
DYNAMIC SYMBOL TABLE
On 04/21/2010 07:42 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
However in the past when I submitted patches for areas outside
of the darwin specific source files, they were rejected*if* they
made the code too darwin-centric.
Well, in this case I gave you a suggestion, so it was implicit that I'd
have approved t
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:22:47PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:52:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 04/19/2010 03:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>> The annoucement should probably note that targets
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:48:36PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/21/2010 07:42 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> However in the past when I submitted patches for areas outside
>> of the darwin specific source files, they were rejected*if* they
>> made the code too darwin-centric.
>
> Well, in this
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> > Well your review does pretty much amount to "because darwin lacks
>> > objdump like linux, the patch is rejected...".
>>
>> Stop that argument. You're fighting windmills.
I was referring to your repeated "gcc-is-linux-centric" accusation.
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:10:21PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Well your review does pretty much amount to "because darwin lacks
>> objdump like linux, the patch is rejected...".
>
> Please reread.
Paolo,
You say...
> The patch is not okay, it is if you use "nm -g" on Darwin only.
However
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 07:22:47PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Jack Howarth
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:52:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 04/19/2010 03:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>> The annoucement should probably note that targets
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:52:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 04/19/2010 03:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
>>> objdump currently can't build plugins. I've had about as muc
On 21 April 2010 19:14, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>> If someone wants to volunteer to write an article about all the delicious
>> goodness of 4.5.0, that would be cool, and lwn.net and others would
>> be interested in publishing such a thing. But the RMs have enough work
>> to do as is, so it
On 21 April 2010 18:49, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:22:32AM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
>> problem, as always, is who will do this job. But I don't think nobody
>> will be against if you create a GCC blog
Well your review does pretty much amount to "because darwin lacks
objdump like linux, the patch is rejected...".
Please reread.
Paolo
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 05:52:03PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/19/2010 03:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
>> objdump currently can't build plugins. I've had about as much
>> luck getting the patch to fix this...
>>
>> http://gcc
Joe Buck wrote:
> If someone wants to volunteer to write an article about all the delicious
> goodness of 4.5.0, that would be cool, and lwn.net and others would
> be interested in publishing such a thing. But the RMs have enough work
> to do as is, so it shouldn't be up to Mark to produce a beau
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:22:32AM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
> problem, as always, is who will do this job. But I don't think nobody
> will be against if you create a GCC blog/tweeter/youtube channel and
> start writing n
On 04/19/2010 03:35 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
objdump currently can't build plugins. I've had about as much
luck getting the patch to fix this...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00610.html
Sorry if I haven't reviewed a
On 21/04/2010 00:43, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> On 19/04/2010 14:35, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>>The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
>>> objdump currently can't build plugins.
>> Hey, and non-ELF targets also probably c
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Dave Korn
wrote:
> On 19/04/2010 14:35, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
>> objdump currently can't build plugins.
>
> Hey, and non-ELF targets also probably can't, I think.
Actually non-elf targets work wit
On 19/04/2010 14:35, Jack Howarth wrote:
>The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
> objdump currently can't build plugins.
Hey, and non-ELF targets also probably can't, I think.
In the absence of a sudden miraculous flood of volunteers, however, it's
just going to b
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:35:44AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>The annoucement should probably note that targets which lack
> objdump currently can't build plugins. I've had about as much
> luck getting the patch to fix this...
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00610.html
>
> .
On 20 April 2010 03:03, Dave Korn wrote:
> precis. So if there's a discussion to be had here, it's about how GCC should
> be "marketed", and the extent to which a release announcement should be part
> of that effort.
Is there any one against advertising GCC to the fullest extent? The
problem, as
On 19/04/2010 15:31, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> But, I don't think that plug-ins are yet a useful thing to announce in
> what is essentially a "marketing" context. Most users won't be able to
> use them yet. We have some infrastructure; we don't have a lot of use
> of that infrastructure yet.
Wel
On 19 April 2010 18:34, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> Note [*]: are we sure that other announced features, like Link Time
> Optimization, are *easily* usable by *ordinary* GCC users? I don't know, and
> I am not sure... Perhaps most ordinary users only know about -O1 or -O3...
Well, yes, because
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins,
another major feature of GCC. Why ?
I consider plug-ins an important feature for the future of GCC. I gave
a talk this past week as the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in
Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins,
> another major feature of GCC. Why ?
I consider plug-ins an important feature for the future of GCC. I gave
a talk this past week as the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit in
which I made the case
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 11:23:35AM +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
...
> I am not a native english speaker, but something like the following
> paragraph [to be added after the paragraph: GCC 4.5.0 is now capable
> of "link-time optimization". ... and equally significant reductions in
> code
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:50:48AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
> wrote:
> > Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>
> >> The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)
> >> development team have released GCC 4.5.0. [...]
> >
> >
> >
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>
>> The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)
>> development team have released GCC 4.5.0. [...]
>
>
> It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins, another
> major f
Mark Mitchell wrote:
The Free Software Foundation and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC)
development team have released GCC 4.5.0. [...]
It is really unfortunate the annoucement did not mention plugins,
another major feature of GCC. Why ?
--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevit
47 matches
Mail list logo
