> So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
> containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
> generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
> part would just appear as an appendix to the manual, it's "mere
> aggregation".
This
> The FSF's responsibility for legal matters under the Mission
> Statement comes with a duty to the developers not to get in the way
> of the "Patches will be considered equally based on their technical
> merits." principle from the Mission Statement. The FSF is failing in
> its duty to what was
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Richard Guenther [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 03 August 2010 17:22
>> To: Bingfeng Mei
>> Cc: Alexander Monakov; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Restrict qualifier still not working?
>>
>
Hi,
>> I've tested sh-softfp-20100718-2131 + sh-softfp-predicate-fix
>> on -m1, -m2, -m3, -m3 -ml, -m2a on sh-elf, sh4-linux and
>> sh64-linux
The SH toolchain was built with the following patches and regression
is completed.
1. sh-softfp-20100718-2131
2. sh-softfp-predicate-fix
3. Patch by Kaz
"Naveen H. S" wrote:
> The SH toolchain was built with the following patches and regression
> is completed.
> 1. sh-softfp-20100718-2131
> 2. sh-softfp-predicate-fix
> 3. Patch by Kaz Kojima-san at following link
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-07/msg00352.html
Thanks for testing.
> However, th
Hi,
alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-iteration memory dependence
is drawn by calling insn_alias_sets
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
> whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
> number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
> oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-
first of all: I'm not subscribed to gcc's ML, so please cc: in any answers.
I'm cross-compiling an application to a platform whose SDK brings a gcc
which reports 'Thread model: single'. even so, the platform implements a
rudimentary thread support (a subset of posix), which leads me to
On 10-08-04 03:22 , Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
The FSF's responsibility for legal matters under the Mission
Statement comes with a duty to the developers not to get in the way
of the "Patches will be considered equally based on their technical
merits." principle from the Mission Statement. The FSF
Hi,
I am looking at gcc-4.4.4, and porting a backend into this version.
However, what didn't break in previous 4.2 / 4.3, now keeps breaking
in both CB and priority algorithms.
Line 1792 of ira.c keeps breaking. For context here's the function:
1783 static void
1784 setup_preferred_alternate_class
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
> Hi,
> alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
> whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
> number, which seems not correct with recent changes on alias
> oracle. For example, in ddg.c cross-
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Bingfeng Mei wrote:
>> Hi,
>> alias_sets_conflict_p are still used in various places to determine
>> whether two memory accesses are aliased. It is based on unique set
>> number, which seems not correct with
For example, alias_sets_conflict_p will say the a[i]
is aliased with b[i]. It is both conservative and wrong.
void foo(int * restrict a, int * restrict b, int n)
{
int i;
for(i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
a[i] = b[i] * 100;
}
}
Bingfeng
> -Original Message-
> From: Steven Bosscher [ma
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
coordination with the people behind GCC/Graphite. The main novelties
are:
- a class PIP_Problem
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:21:05AM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
>
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals, one
> > containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other containing
> > generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a book, the generated
> > part would
On 08/04/2010 08:43 AM, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
coordination with the people behind GCC/Graphite.
On Wednesday 04 August 2010 01:53:56 gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> Snapshot gcc-4.4-20100803 is now available on
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20100803/
> and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
>
> This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
> > one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
> > containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
> > book, the generated part would just appear as an appendix to
> > the manual, it's "
On 08/04/2010 07:34 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > So one way to move forward is to effectively have two manuals,
> > one containing traditional user-written text (GFDL), the other
> > containing generated text (GPL). If you print it out as a
> > book, the generated part
On 4 August 2010 13:56, Marcos Dione wrote:
>
> I'm cross-compiling an application to a platform whose SDK brings a gcc
> which reports 'Thread model: single'. even so, the platform implements a
> rudimentary thread support (a subset of posix), which leads me to think
> that it should be possibl
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:34:51AM -0700, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
>no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
>
> When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn but
> rightly so.
>
> I don't see what th
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an "options manual" separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options for
various archit
On 08/04/2010 08:48 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You probably haven't read this thread fully, or you wouldn't imply
that GCC should have an "options manual" separate from the user's
manual.
I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
keeping that info in a sepera
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:43:33PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
> of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
>
> This release has many new features, some of which developed in strict
> coordination with the pe
On 4 August 2010 19:48, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
> I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options for
> various architectures and systems that I think it makes technical
> sense to have a "Invoking GCC" manual.
A
I'd hate to see generated documented discounted so quickly.
Especially if the alternative is no documentation.
I'd note the QT docs as a great example of embedded
comments and auto generated documentation done very well.
> I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
> technical sense to have a "Invoking GCC" manual.
And what about libstdc++ API docs, w
>You are being denied by RMS. He controls the copyright, the SC has
>no legal say, and he's stubborn as hell.
>
> When presented with weak arguments, then yes he will be stubborn
> but rightly so.
>
> I don't see what the problem is with two manuals, from a users
On 10-08-04 16:03 , Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
There is no rule in the GNU project that all types of documentation
must be licensed under the GFDL. Sometimes it makes sense, good
examples are the gccint
I don't think we want gccint to be under the GFDL. This is the main
part of the documentati
> I ran gcc 162830 on x86 under a tool that checks for integer undefined
> behaviors. The attached error messages show up when running "make
> check" and when recompiling gcc.
>
> Each line in the attachment is an error message giving the problematic
> operator, its srcloc, the types of its operan
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> > keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> > for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
> > technical sense to have a "
I think the messages are clear enough. You should probably wait a few days to
let people comment and/or fix, and then file PRs. 1 per file seems to be the
right granularity.
Thanks Eric, that's what I'll do.
John
On 08/04/2010 10:52 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> for various architectures and systems that
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL->GFDL I
> cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
> same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because there is explicit language in the Affero
On 4 August 2010 21:03, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > I have read the thread in full, and I do not see the problem with
> > keeping that info in a seperate manual; GCC has so many options
> > for various architectures and systems that I think it makes
> > technical sense to have a "Invoking
On 08/04/2010 11:52 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 02:12:18PM -0700, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
However, until there is a possibility to relicense anything GPL->GFDL I
cannot disagree. In fact, since the GFDL is more restrictive, it is the
same thing as the Affero GPL.
No, because ther
>> Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella
>>
>> Applied Formal Methods Laboratory
>> Department of Mathematics
>> University of Parma, Italy
>>
>
> cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and
> cloog on the system then build gcc? right now with the latest snapsh
On Wed, August 4, 2010 8:45 pm, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 4 August 2010 13:56, Marcos Dione wrote:
>>so, in short: does a simple Thread model have any impact on C-only
>> programs that could use threads? in particular, how it does impact
>> Boehm's GC usage in a C-only program? if the impact
On 08/04/2010 08:09 PM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
Roberto Bagnara Patricia M. Hill Enea Zaffanella
Applied Formal Methods Laboratory
Department of Mathematics
University of Parma, Italy
cool.. just downloaded it.. just curious if I need to install ppl and
cloog on the system then build gcc? righ
On 08/04/10 20:58, Jack Howarth wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 05:43:33PM +0200, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
The core development team is very pleased to announce the availability
of PPL 0.11, a new release of the Parma Polyhedra Library.
This release has many new features, some of which developed i
On 08/05/10 05:09, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On a number of occasions I have tried to build ppl and Cloog and watched
the process fail repeatedly. I have yet to see it complete with any
degree of success. Perhaps this is due to some strange issue with gmp and
mpfr header versions and a false error m
41 matches
Mail list logo
