On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Richard Smith wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > On Wednesday July 18, 2007 I brought factual evidence to
| > that claim by showing g++ behaviour on all of the examples
| > discussed (including those from the "decltype" proposal).
| > (All I did was to encode call express
I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
option?
Thanks.
Index: MAINTAINERS
===
--- MAINTAINERS (revision 126951)
+++ MAINTAINERS (workin
Hello,
> I liked the idea of 'Reviewers' more than any of the other options.
> I would like to go with this patch, unless we find a much better
> option?
to cancel this category of maintainers completely? I guess it was
probably discussed before (I am too lazy to check), but the existence
of non
On 27/07/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:13:30PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> > I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>IMHO, DJ hit the nail on the head. Those people who can't figure out to
> pos
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:13:30PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IMHO, DJ hit the nail on the head. Those people who can't figure out to
post to gcc-help@ instead of gcc@ surely won't figure out to post to
gcc-newbies
> The test there is sort of hack, I would just remove it at this stage and
> we can work out better fix for that testcase later. I hope that with my
> plans for declaration merging pass we can get round such weird side
> effects of in place declaration replacement.
Will do.
How about all the oth
I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and itanium2 architecture. I instrumented
each ld and st instruction in final_scan_insn() by looking at the insn
template (These instrumentations are used to do some security checks).
These instrumentations incur high performance overhead when running
specint benchmarks. H
> If we do not manage to answer such mails on gcc@ (due to ressource reasons
> I suppose) than I doubt we will do better on a separate mailinglist. The
> amount of traffic with "newbie" questions is not dominant on gcc@ or
> gcc-patches@ anyway, so I see little point in directing them elsewhere
>
> I am not sure if a new list will help. Some have argued that long time
> developers may be discouraged to participate in such list and that new
> developers would be discouraged from participating in the main list. I
> think both are pretty good arguments.
That's my concern as well. Moreover, h
> Since the whole file is about MAINTAINERS, I would suggest changing the
> categories to:
>
> - Committers (i.e. committing maintainers)
> - Reviewers (i.e. reviewing maintainers)
> - Non-algorithmic committers
I like the idea of "reviewers", but think "committers" is confusing. Perhaps
"full"
On 26 Jul 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| On 7/26/07, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > >I would like to propose the creation a new mailing list:
| > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| > >
| > >The purpose of this list is to attract and help new GCC developers who
| > >might feel lost and intimidated by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since I have been around no more than one year, perhaps my perspective
could have some interest for the discussion.
Just an example. There are people that post patches in bugzilla and
they seem interested in getting them integrated but normally they
break coding style
Available for download at:
http://people.redhat.com/lockhart/.GCC2007-Proceedings.pdf
-Ron
/**/
Ron Chen
Grid Engine Project:
http://gridengine.sunsource.net/
http://www.gridengine.info/
/**/
_
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:27:39AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 7/27/07 8:27 AM, Ron Chen wrote:
> > Available for download at:
> > http://people.redhat.com/lockhart/.GCC2007-Proceedings.pdf
>
> John says that this location is temporary and will disappear shortly. He
> may add a link to a perm
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this machine
This question is appropriate for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
rather than the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list. Please take any followups to
gcc-help. Thanks.
> In either case
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 04:22:31PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> The users don't want to join and detach to many mailing lists to post
> only a message once by week or month. He wants to post quickly,
> not to post slowly more than 10 minutes.
You're trying to optimize the wrong cost measure.
It's
On 7/27/07 8:27 AM, Ron Chen wrote:
> Available for download at:
> http://people.redhat.com/lockhart/.GCC2007-Proceedings.pdf
John says that this location is temporary and will disappear shortly. He
may add a link to a permanent location soon. In the meantime,
I've added attached the proceedings
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/lto/ChangeLog
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gimple-tuples-branch/ChangeLog
2007-07-17 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* COPYING3: New file. Contains version 3 of the GNU General
Public License.
* COPYING3.LIB: New file. Contai
Since I have been around no more than one year, perhaps my perspective
could have some interest for the discussion.
I am not sure if a new list will help. Some have argued that long time
developers may be discouraged to participate in such list and that new
developers would be discouraged from par
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 17:13 -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
Or maybe this is not a good idea, but I have certainly seen some folks
that complain about our less than friendly practices.
Alternative would be to keep gcc@ and document that
emails with subject tag [BEGINNER] shou
On Jul 27, 2007, at 07:54, Diego Novillo wrote:
+Note that individuals who maintain parts of the compiler as reviewers
+need approval changes outside of the parts of the compiler they
+maintain and also need approval for their own patches.
s/approval changes/approval for changes/ ?
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> At the C++ language level, there are concerns of how to specify the
> interaction. All I claimed was that the observable semantics
> does not need further specification to make the examples work.
>
> At the compiler internals level, how overloads are handled has a much
>
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Richard Smith wrote:
| > | The general philosophy in the current ABI would seem to be
| > | that the expression is encoded in terms of its template
| > | parameters, and not with the evaluated expression with the
| > | subsituted argument.
| >
| > That is correct. For a compi
On 7/27/07, Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another recent example: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00456.html
> (Not a single answer).
>
> Summing up, I am not sure whether a separate list would help but in my
> opinion there are a few things that will:
If we do not manage
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 12:36:19PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >For example, several targets would build/bootstrap and regtest fine with
> > reload's find_valid_class() implemented as gcc_abort(). And guess what,
> > there seems to
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:26:22AM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Just an example. There are people that post patches in bugzilla and
> they seem interested in getting them integrated but normally they
> break coding style or don't have changelog or didn't even run the
> testsuite. Of course,
On 27/07/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 11:26:22AM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> > Just an example. There are people that post patches in bugzilla and
> > they seem interested in getting them integrated but normally they
> > break coding styl
2007/7/27, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 04:22:31PM +0200, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > The users don't want to join and detach to many mailing lists to post
> > only a message once by week or month. He wants to post quickly,
> > not to post slowly more than 10 minutes.
>
On 7/27/07 11:53 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> It's too early Nick Clifton! Delay a little until 31th of July, please. ;)
These came in via merges with mainline. I doubt that either branch has
any issues with this change. The tuples branch certainly welcomes these
changes.
"吴曦" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and itanium2 architecture. I instrumented
> each ld and st instruction in final_scan_insn() by looking at the insn
> template (These instrumentations are used to do some security checks).
> These instrumentations incur high performance o
On 7/27/07 11:55 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> Why not provide a permanent home for the GCC summit proceedings at
> gcc.gnu.org? It seems the logical place.
That's what I've done. The .pdf is *in* gcc.gnu.org. The others could
be sucked in as well. They're now pointing to gccsummit.
> "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this
>> machine
>
> This question is appropriate for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> rather than the gcc@gcc.gnu.org list. Please take any followups to
> gcc-help. Thanks.
I
"Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Dennis Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> SUMMARY : the stage 2 compiler produces the wrong binary type for this
> >> machine
> >
> > This question is appropriate for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
> > rather than the gcc@gcc.gnu.org l
Hi all,
Bootstrap including gfortran has been broken on native i386-pc-mingw32
for at least 10 days, with the C compiler having an ICE while
compiling libgfortran/io/write.c. I finally found the opportunity to
reduce the ICE to the following code:
$ cat write.i
extern void fflush (int);
extern __
So, the idea of a new mailing list does not seem to be too popular. I'm
interested in trying to attract new developers and provide basic
information to get folks started.
The basic motivation was that I've heard from several people both
outside and inside GCC development that we can be a pretty
"Pranav Bhandarkar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am working on a private port and am seeing the following problem.
> For a function returning a double the value is stored by the function
> in memory. cse removes one of the two loads (to retrieve this returned
> value) after the function is call
what options do I need to set on the configure line in order for this to
work?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html , SPARC section.
--
Eric Botcazou
Hi All,
I am working on a private port and am seeing the following problem.
For a function returning a double the value is stored by the function
in memory. cse removes one of the two loads (to retrieve this returned
value) after the function is called.
To elaborate, the following is the dump just
> Where does reg 178 come from? It does not appear in the other insns
> you listed.
I am sorry, my mistake. I meant to say that the dump was only a part
of the entire dump of the function. reg 178 is the result of a
previous call to __floatsidf and is defined by the following insn.
(insn 19 18 2
>> what options do I need to set on the configure line in order for this to
>> work?
>
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.2/changes.html , SPARC section.
You Sir are magnificent and wonderful !
Thank you so very much.
Dennis
Dennis Clarke wrote:
At the moment GCC 4.2.1 seems to be tied to the UltraSparc processor and
thus the older sun4m and 32-bit Sparc machines are being ignored.
The default cpu is v8plus. You can change that by using the configure
option --with-cpu=v8 or --with-cpu=v7 depending on how old your
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
>> At the moment GCC 4.2.1 seems to be tied to the UltraSparc processor and
>> thus the older sun4m and 32-bit Sparc machines are being ignored.
>
> The default cpu is v8plus. You can change that by using the configure
> option --with-cpu=v8 or --with-cpu=v7 depending on ho
Hi Naren
>From the description that you just gave me, it looks like you aren't doing
>anything special, just compiling a simple hello world program on SFU3.5.
The only known issues wrt to this is that you might have DEP(Data Execution
Protection) enabled which could be causing this. We have rece
unshare_all_rtl used to unshare DECL_RTLs as well as expressions in the
instruction stream. That changed with:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00541.html
I think that patch was in itself the right thing to do. However, in
anticipation of the old unshare_all_rtl behaviour, unsha
I have updated ecj.jar and ecj-source.tar.bz2 on sourceware.org.
This is the "reference ecj" that is used to build the .class files in
libjava.
If you have a build where compiling from .java to .class is enabled,
you must update your ecj.jar. You can do this by running
contrib/download_ecj.
I wi
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:51:00PM +0100, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 27/07/07, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >If you ask me, we should rename gcc@ to gcc-development@ and maybe rename
> > gcc-help@ to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ... gcc-dev@, keep gcc@ as an alias for gc
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, Phil Edwards wrote:
> Putting gcc-help as the first address mentioned in lists.html is a
> good idea.
That's a good idea. Done thusly.
Gerald
Index: lists.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/lists.html,v
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20070727 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20070727/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
> > > > I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and itanium2 architecture. I instrumented
> > > > each ld and st instruction in final_scan_insn() by looking at the insn
> > > > template (These instrumentations are used to do some security checks).
> > > > These instrumentations incur high performance overhead wh
Hi
I am in the process of verifying that gcc (3.3.2) produces traceable
object code (ie. gcc does not introduce 'hidden' structure into the
object code).
I have created a file with several functions containing various
combinations of C constructs and I intend to examine the resulting
object code
On 26 Jul 2007 15:53:09 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think that when we do steer someone to a different list, we could
> > take more care to be polite about it than we sometimes are.
>
> I agree. I also think we should all try ha
Hi,
On 7/28/07, 吴曦 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I am working on gcc 4.1.1 and itanium2 architecture. I instrumented
> > > > > each ld and st instruction in final_scan_insn() by looking at the insn
> > > > > template (These instrumentations are used to do some security checks).
> > > > > T
52 matches
Mail list logo
