On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:49 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote:
>>> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly),
>>> GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc
On 19 December 2016 at 10:17, Seima Rao wrote:
> I was referring to one of three approaches:
>
> i) Write a Specification document and a matching testsuite
>
> ii) Document _all_ data and code together with file formats
>(e.g. dumps).
>
> iii) Both (i) & (ii)
>
> (i) is easy
I disagree.
A fun
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19 December 2016 at 10:17, Seima Rao wrote:
>> I was referring to one of three approaches:
>>
>> i) Write a Specification document and a matching testsuite
>>
>> ii) Document _all_ data and code together with file formats
>>(e.g. dum
Hi guys,
I have the following rtl before asmcons pass:
(insn 8 13 9 2 (set (reg:SI 157 [ list ])
(asm_operands:SI ("") ("=g") 0 [
(const:SI (unspec:SI [
(symbol_ref:SI ("c_const") [flags 0x2] )
] ARC_UNSPEC_GOTOFFPC))
On 12/16/2016 07:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
That's likely the manual RMS kept asking folks (semi-privately) to
review. My response was consistently that such review should happen
publicly, which RMS opposed for reasons I don't recall.
I don't see that manual as part of the GCC project and I certai
On Fri, 2016-12-02 at 12:13 +0100, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 11:13:37AM -0800, Bin Fan at Work wrote:
> > Hi Szabolcs,
> >
> > > On Nov 29, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > >
> > > On 17/11/16 20:12, Bin Fan wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Although this ABI specification s
Hi Claudiu,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:28:54PM +, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
> I have the following rtl before asmcons pass:
>
> (insn 8 13 9 2 (set (reg:SI 157 [ list ])
> (asm_operands:SI ("") ("=g") 0 [
> (const:SI (unspec:SI [
> (symbol_r
On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/16/2016 07:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> > That's likely the manual RMS kept asking folks (semi-privately) to
> > review. My response was consistently that such review should happen
> > publicly, which RMS opposed for reasons I don't recall.
> >
>
On 19/12/2016 18:06, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Hi Claudiu,
On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:28:54PM +, Claudiu Zissulescu wrote:
I have the following rtl before asmcons pass:
(insn 8 13 9 2 (set (reg:SI 157 [ list ])
(asm_operands:SI ("") ("=g") 0 [
(const:SI (unspec:SI [
On 12/19/2016 07:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
When BSI consulted on the ISO strategic plan consultation for 2016-2020 my
response said that all standards should be freely licensed (I said 'I
would like to see these points reflected in BSI's response to ISO. ...
Thus: the goal for ISO should be to
Seima Rao writes:
> Has gcc become proprietory/commercial ?
By definition: no, yes. It's been this way since the beginning, and
hasn't changed in decades.
> Or has it become illegal to publish specification models
> of gcc internals ? Does this make the product sell less ?
This
Dear Valued Member
With the Holidays almost here and 2017 just around the corner, it is very
important to get your online business in a position of being found on major
search engines. Now a days, it's not only about keywords anymore, it's about
branding your company through a very complex m
12 matches
Mail list logo
