Gerald Pfeifer writes:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> > Seems like the weekly snapshots from gcc-6-branch were disabled before
> > the 6.4.0 release but not re-enabled afterwards. The snapshots from
> > trunk and gcc-{7,5}-branch are being generated as
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> Seems like the weekly snapshots from gcc-6-branch were disabled before
> the 6.4.0 release but not re-enabled afterwards. The snapshots from
> trunk and gcc-{7,5}-branch are being generated as usual.
You are right, I observed the same
Seems like the weekly snapshots from gcc-6-branch were disabled before
the 6.4.0 release but not re-enabled afterwards. The snapshots from
trunk and gcc-{7,5}-branch are being generated as usual.
Thankyou for providing snapshots for those of us who really like
gcc, I've been using gcc-5.3 for a while now and it is a pleasure.
Many thanks.
On 09/09/2014 06:05 PM, pins...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a patch which I need to submit. Maybe by Friday I will do that. It
> fixes the kernel on arm64 but it is generic c front-end patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg01146.html fixed kernel
miscompilation for me. The second iss
urrently unable to debug. When
>>> building an arbitrary version of Linux kernel for
>>> powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
>>> target, it seems gcc prior to 5 produces a good image which boots just
>>> fine, and
>>> current gcc 5 snapshots (4.10.0-alpha201
n of Linux kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
>> target, it seems gcc prior to 5 produces a good image which boots just fine,
>> and
>> current gcc 5 snapshots (4.10.0-alpha20140810 for example) produce an image
>> which hangs just after U-Boot hands over to the kernel.
&g
age which boots just fine,
> and
> current gcc 5 snapshots (4.10.0-alpha20140810 for example) produce an image
> which hangs just after U-Boot hands over to the kernel.
>
> This behavior is well reproducible on real hardware as well as under qemu.
> I've
> prepared a min
Hello,
I've recently faced an issue I'm afraid I currently unable to debug. When
building an arbitrary version of Linux kernel for powerpc-e500v2-linux-gnuspe
target, it seems gcc prior to 5 produces a good image which boots just fine, and
current gcc 5 snapshots (4.10.0-alpha20140810 f
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>> I was idly looking through a couple of snapshots of the gcc -trunk line.
>> I am by no means a compiler developer, but I did notice that you aren't
>> using lzma for compression. I don't know if bandwidth is at all a
>
On 2010-01-12 19:40:50 -0500, Kevin Hunter wrote:
> I was idly looking through a couple of snapshots of the gcc -trunk line.
> I am by no means a compiler developer, but I did notice that you aren't
> using lzma for compression. I don't know if bandwidth is at all a
> conce
Hi GNU GCC folks,
I was idly looking through a couple of snapshots of the gcc -trunk line.
I am by no means a compiler developer, but I did notice that you aren't
using lzma for compression. I don't know if bandwidth is at all a
concern, but I can point to a >20% drop in download
> have this Problem or not.
>
> The first GCC 4.5.0 i compile was in month 08.this have the Bug.
> But i find on the mirror sites
> only first snapshots now that are from month 10.
>
> So maybe somebody can post me a link to older versions of GCC 4.5.0
>
I would recommend u
.
But i find on the mirror sites
only first snapshots now that are from month 10.
So maybe somebody can post me a link to older versions of GCC 4.5.0
Bye
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> While "overseers" sounds like it might be a cool list, in actual
> practice most of the traffic consists of "please change my e-mail
> address."
And most of the gccadmin traffic is completely routine messages from cron
- things don't break that ofte
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Dave Korn writes:
>
>> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
>>>>> If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of
>>&
Dave Korn writes:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
>>>> If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of
>>>> individual
>>>> snapshots o
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
>> Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
>>> If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of individual
>>> snapshots or other individual jobs run from cron, you should follow the
>>&
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
> > If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of individual
> > snapshots or other individual jobs run from cron, you should follow the
> > gccadmin and overseers lists, where yo
Joseph S. Myers schrieb:
If you are interested in following the fine points of breakage of
individual snapshots or other individual jobs run from cron, you should
follow the gccadmin and overseers lists, where you would have seen the
message showing the breakage and the subsequent discussion
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> It seems the bot or whatever that generates the weekly snapshots
> has stopped working for the 4.3 branch. I would have expected a
> new snapshot 2-3 days ago but found nothing on the mirrors.
> (And there has been commits since the l
It seems the bot or whatever that generates the weekly snapshots
has stopped working for the 4.3 branch. I would have expected a
new snapshot 2-3 days ago but found nothing on the mirrors.
(And there has been commits since the last snapshot.)
/Mikael
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:08:32 +0200
Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> All the problems of PPL 0.10.1 we are aware of have been
> fixed in the snapshot of PPL 0.10.2 available at
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.unipr.it/pub/ppl/snapshots/
>
> In particular here is what has changed:
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 02:08:32PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> All the problems of PPL 0.10.1 we are aware of have been
> fixed in the snapshot of PPL 0.10.2 available at
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.unipr.it/pub/ppl/snapshots/
>
> In particular here is what has changed:
>
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> All the problems of PPL 0.10.1 we are aware of have been
> fixed in the snapshot of PPL 0.10.2 available at
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.unipr.it/pub/ppl/snapshots/
>
> In particular here is what has changed:
>
> -
All the problems of PPL 0.10.1 we are aware of have been
fixed in the snapshot of PPL 0.10.2 available at
ftp://ftp.cs.unipr.it/pub/ppl/snapshots/
In particular here is what has changed:
- Correctly detect GMP 4.3.0.
- Fixed the C interface library version information.
- Test program
I realized that our full FTP tree at ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/
consumes 27GB overall.
There is ample diskspace on gcc.gnu.org itself, but for (new) mirrors
this is quite a bit, for example, so I went ahead and reduced this to
18G by removing some older snapshots (from 2007 and RCs for previous
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> > Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happen if there is no
> > modification to the branch since the last DATESTAMP.
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 11:48:31PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The snapshots know nothing of whether there wer
ady.
> > >
> > > No, a new 4.1 snapshot was created May 26, even though the last checkin
> > > was April 8.
> >
> > That's because the tree is still daily updated with the DATESTAMP changes.
>
> Ah. Then the DATESTAMP change shouldn't happe
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 08:15:20PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> >> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > A third alternative is to issue a sna
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
>> > is chosen) iff there's been a checki
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 09:11:18PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
> > is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch.
>
> I thought that's how it worked already.
No, a new 4
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
of these.
I agree that turning off the 4.1 snapshots makes sense. If you're
sufficiently motivated to do the automatic
sna
On 5/27/08, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A third alternative is to issue a snapshot (at whatever time interval
> is chosen) iff there's been a checkin on the branch.
I thought that's how it worked already.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My recommendation in my very unoffical role as "carer of the snapshots"
> > is to stop doing those weekly snapshots for the 4.1 branch, and I will
> > be happy to roll a new snapshot
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:48 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
> and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
> of these.
>
> A while ago we agreed, for a number of r
At this point, we have three open release branches (4.1, 4.2, and 4.3)
and trunk. Currently we are generating weekly snapshots for all four
of these.
A while ago we agreed, for a number of reasons, not to do any further
GCC 4.1.x releases and the speed of changes on that branch has noticably
Original Message
Subject: Libiberty problem in gcc-4.3 snapshots
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 17:14:47 -0500
From: Andris Pavenis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tried to build gcc-4.3-20071123 for DJGPP (native build). Run into a fol
As I'm now building GCC 4.2.0 RC1 (*), and am thereby beginning the
release cycle for 4.2.0, I've disabled the 4.2 branch snapshots. It
seems confusing to have both the prereleases (which I build) and the
snapshots (which robots build) available simultaneously, and I would
prefe
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > >
| > > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
| > >
| > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
| > > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
| > > > because they are targeted fo
>
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> | > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
> >
> > If
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
| > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
| > > discontinued.
| >
| >
>
> [ omitting gcc-patches ]
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
>
> If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
> which inclu
[ omitting gcc-patches ]
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
which include:
1. Updating o
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:23:36PM -0500, David Fang wrote:
> User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced
> to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered
> fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are
> not in 4.0 (
On 1/5/07, David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I d
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we sho
> I'd like to see it closed, too, all Linux/BSD vendors I know of are either
> still using 3.x or have switched to 4.1 already.
Yes, 4.1.x seems to have been selected by various vendors as the codebase for
their first GCC4-based release.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 1/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 sti
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
>
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> discontinued.
4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
4.0.4 release?
Ian
Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
discontinued.
David
ROTECTED]>
* crontab: Spread snapshots more evenly throughout the week, and
in "ascending" order. Build all at the same time of the day.
Index: crontab
===
--- crontab (revision 120450)
+++ cron
apped like:
==
# bootstrap the compiler
# note: those STAGE1_CFLAGS are needed to avoid
# http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14780
ftp
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.0-20050326/gcc-4.0-
20050326.tar.bz2
openssl md5 gcc-4.0-20050326.tar.bz2
tar -jxf gcc-4.0-20050326.tar.bz2
Ranjit Mathew wrote:
IMHO "gnattools" should be added to "ADA_DIRS" in "gcc_release"
to generate snapshots properly. Otherwise, people who do not
download and install "gcc-ada" tarballs will get a bootstrap
error.
I verified that if I download the gcc-cor
Hi,
IMHO "gnattools" should be added to "ADA_DIRS" in "gcc_release"
to generate snapshots properly. Otherwise, people who do not
download and install "gcc-ada" tarballs will get a bootstrap
error.
I no longer use official GCC source snapshots, but I st
57 matches
Mail list logo
