On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions.
>
> I'm curious, why?
>
> Jason
>
It's important for GCOV to report coverage for fun
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite unpleasant
> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
> scripting
> language like Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts? It's pro
On 18/07/18 10:51, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> Hi.
>>
>> I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite unpleasant
>> to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting using a
>> scripting
>> language like Pyt
On Wed, 2018-07-18 at 11:51 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:49 PM Martin Liška wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite
> > unpleasant
> > to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we starting
> > using a scr
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 06:56:31AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > alternatively we could handle the generated files like those we still
> > need flex for:
We can't, because unlike the flex output, the option handling is heavily
target specific and storing in the tarball a collection of per-target
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> RHEL 6).
It is indeed. Without some regular testing with Python 2.6 it could be
easy to introduce co
Jonathan Wakely :
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> > to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> > RHEL 6).
>
> It is indeed. Without some regular testing with Python 2.6 it
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> Jonathan Wakely :
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is about
> > > to be 10 years old. (IIRC it was the system python implementation in
> > > RHEL 6).
>
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
>>> among DECL_ARTIFICIAL functions.
>>
>> I'm curious, why?
>
> I
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Wakely :
> > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > > Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3.*. and is
> about
> > > > to be 10 years ol
On 07/18/2018 02:40 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 07/18/2018 03:45 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
For purpose of --coverage I would like to distinguish lambda functions
among DECL_
On 18.07.2018 14:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>>>
>>> Jonathan Wakely :
On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> Python 2.6 onwards is broadly compatible with Python 3
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:29 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 18.07.2018 14:49, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 7:15 AM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:06, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Jonathan Wakely :
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 11:56, David Mal
On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> My question is simple: can we starting using a scripting language like
> Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts?
I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a suitable version of
Python if one is not available on the build machine
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 20:23:36 -0400
David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 16:37 -0400, David Niklas wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > >
> > > I've recently touched AWK option generate machinery and it's quite
> > > unpleasant to make any adjustments. My question is simple: can we
> > > starting using a
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 14:49 +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
>
>> My question is simple: can we starting using a scripting language like
>> Python and replace usage of the AWK scripts?
>
> I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a
Paul Koning writes:
> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Boris Kolpackov
> > wrote:
> >
> > I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a suitable version of
> > Python if one is not available on the build machine? With awk I can
> > build it from source pretty much anywhere. Is building newe
> On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>
> Paul Koning writes:
>
>>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Boris Kolpackov
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a suitable version of
>>> Python if one is not available on the build machine? With awk I c
Hi,
I tried doing as suggested
+ dfi.pflags = 0;
+ dump_switch_p_1 (arg, &dfi, false);
1.> the value of dfi.pflags is not changing even if different command
line options are passed like -fdump-blocks or -fdump-vops
2.> what is the significance of bool doglob?
Please find the diff file attac
On 18.07.2018 19:29, Paul Koning wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:22 PM, Boris Kolpackov wrote:
>>
>> Paul Koning writes:
>>
On Jul 18, 2018, at 11:13 AM, Boris Kolpackov
wrote:
I wonder what will be the expected way to obtain a suitable version of
Python if one is
Jonathan Wakely :
> I don't see any mention of avoiding dict comprehensions (not supported
> until 2.7, so unusable on RHEL6/CentOS6 and SLES 11).
That is correct. The HOWTO introduction does say that its techniques
won't guarantee 2.6 compatibility. That would have been a great deal more
difficu
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:51:36AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> We already conditionally require Perl for building for some targets so I
> wonder
> if using perl would be better ...
At least perl is GPL (Python is not).
What would the advantage of using Python be? I haven't heard any yet.
Aw
Snapshot gcc-6-20180718 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20180718/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
23 matches
Mail list logo
