An update on this year's Cauldron.
As I mentioned before, we have reached the maximum number of
attendees that we can accept. Registrations are now closed.
If you had registered but will no longer be able to attend,
please let us know so we can free up that slot for someone else.
I have added
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Today I started resurrecting my old automatic dependency patch.
Thanks Tom! I'd hug you if you weren't so ugly ;)
> There may be more missing dependencies. Please try out this branch if
> you would. You can report bugs to me, just send the
I have uploaded all the slides I received to the wiki page.
If you presented a talk and do not see your slides in
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013, please fix the link
yourself or let me know and I'll add them to the table (if you
can fix the links yourself, you'll be doing me a big favour).
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I'd like to make some changes to the GCC git-svn mirror. Specifically, I
> want to move all the SVN branches from remotes/ into heads/ and split the
> subdirectory branches (redhat, google, etc) into the individual branches.
Not sure if I c
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 04:59 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if I completely understand, but would this change make it
>> easier to deal with subdirectory branches? It's pretty horrid now.
>
>
> That&#x
I have uploaded all the videos we recorded at the Cauldron to
the workshop page (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013).
The videos are also available at the YouTube playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsgS8fWwKJZhrjVEN7tsQyj2nLb5z0n70
If you think your talk was recorded but you do no
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to suggest that new implementation files have
> the '.cc' extension, unless they are meant to be processed
> with a C compiler. (I am not proposing wholesale renaming.)
Agreed.
Diego.
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
>> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
>> where there is going to be none.
>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-29 10:34:40 +0200, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>>
>> I honestly wouldn't worry about such legacy systems: their respective
>> maintainers take care of testing them, and it would be hard nowadays to
>> even find both hardware an
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I have established Google+ and Twitter pages for the GNU Toolchain
> (GCC, Binutils, GDB) as additional, un-official communication channels
> for announcements and highlights of interesting mailing list
> discussions.
Thanks David. Defini
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I've checked in the automatic dependency tracking patch series.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! A long time in the making, but I'm
glad you persevered.
Diego.
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> The question is... Do we allow a .h file like this to be an aggregator,
> meaning a file can just include tree-ssa.h and get all this, or do we push
> it all down to the .c file, and actually include what each one needs. Or do
> we pick a
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> I wonder what it'd take to have a cpp extension to include a file in
> such a manner as to
> emit a diagnostic if the items declared / #defined inside are used
> directly by a file
> that includes the file that does the thus guarded includ
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I've made 4 attempts now to split gimple.[ch] into reasonable component
> parts, and I've finally found something that I can make work and fits my
> plans.
>
> I've attached a diagram to (hopefully :-) clarify things.
That's not a class hi
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> There are no classes. It's an include dependency relationship of the files
> I'm trying to split out Ie who includes/has visibility to a
> file/component.
Ah, thanks.
> Isnt "gimplify" clear to everyone? :-) I've even been referring
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Longer term... the BE will not be calling into gimplify at all.. it will be
> purely a front end thing. As direct tree access vanishes, the optimizers
> will be forced to generate gimple directly, as they should.
Right. Which is the rout
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> gimplify would be routines that work on trees since that's what the front
> end will present. And thats why the backend will no longer need to gimplify
> anything... It'll just build stuff using the gimple-stmt build and the
> gimple type
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thoughts or comments?
I fully support this. I've been wanting to remove Java from the
default bootstrap for a long time now. Bringing in Go seems like a
good idea as well.
Diego.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
>> Thoughts or comments?
>
> If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
>
> So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
> If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
>
>
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's time to move on and do something sensible with the core parts of our
> ILs so that we're all more effective in the long run.
My sentiments, exactly!
Diego.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Note that we have tons of code which accept either objects or types,
> both in the frontends and in the middle-end, so changing TREE_TYPE
> from tree to something else is definitely non-trivial.
Well, sure it's hard. This is the whole poin
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Thus "fixing" trees would be far better as you'd win for both frontend
> and middle-end code!
For FEs, sure. I agree. But right now the focus is on fixing the
interface between FEs and the ME. One thing at a time.
Finally separating FE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> You know - 'tree's were a design decision (well, just my guess - I wasn't
> around 25 years ago ...). They are a perfect match to represent an AST.
Yes, of course. It may have been the right decision at the time. But
design is a dynamic
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Really the best place to start IMHO would be to evict 'tree' from the
> front ends. That would really be a step towards making the front ends
> independent of the rest of the compiler, and it would simplify changes
> towards static 'tree'
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> assignment in general to fix bug 58943. I'd be happy for front ends to
> move to doing all these things themselves, rather than trying to define
> GENERIC in a way that works for every language's requirements on when
> things are evaluate
I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc on a very wide
collection of targets. It builds everything with -Werror, so it
requires a recent host compiler (ideally trunk or the latest release).
Currently, many targets are
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 16:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
>> contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc on a very wide
>> collection
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Hi Diego!
>
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 10:20:48 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
>> contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 12:08:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> [conffig-list.mk]
>> Really, the only thing interesting about the script is the broad set
>> of targets it uses. If you just added them to the schedule of buil
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 18:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> Right, because you're using 4.8. These warnings disappear when using
>> trunk and/or do not actually break the build. I suppose this is too
>> much for
Bah. Forgot to remove html.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
>> static inline functions
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched
> ?
Better leave these macros intact for now. We are trying to flatten out
the #include tree.
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
>>> i
==
GNU Tools Cauldron 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Call for Abstracts and Participation
18-20 July 2014
Cambridge, England
=
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> I'll be at the GNU Cauldron this year, feel free to come and discuss
> this and other ideas. I hope to participate more in the GCC side of
> things, and I wish some of you guys would do the same on our side. And
> hopefully, in a few years, we
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> * GCC and LLVM collaboration / The Open Source Compiler Initiative
>
> With LLVM mature enough to feature as the default toolchain in some
> Unix distributions, and with the inherent (and profitable) share of
> solutions, ideas and code betwee
==
GNU Tools Cauldron 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Call for Abstracts and Participation
18-20 July 2014
Cambridge, England
=
An update to this year's Cauldron. We have almost reached
capacity. There are only a few slots left for registration.
If you still have not registered, please do it quickly. As soon
as we fill up, I will start a waiting list. Priority will be
given to those proposing a presentation or BoF.
If yo
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Comments or suggestions?
On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to
understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher
with peephole like actions? Or would you like to evolve a DSL capable
of wri
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
>> gets rejected and anyone interested can simply download the document from
>> the wiki..]
>>
>> Over the
I've merged trunk rev 183972 into the pph branch.
Diego.
Over in the pph branch we are having several failures due to
TYPE_CANONICAL and the canonical types table.
Entries of the canonical types table corresponding to user-generated
types get saved on each pre-parsed header. We then read the table back
in and register the hash codes corresponding
On 02/03/12 12:56 , Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
Since no other GCC part is using C++ currently, I believe this would
be rather poor first module choice to convert to C++. If C++ was
already a non-optional requirement, then C++ conversion would be OK,
It already is. We bootstrap in C++ mode. I d
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 13:45, Laurynas Biveinis
wrote:
> 2012/3/2 Diego Novillo :
>> It already is. We bootstrap in C++ mode. I don't see a problem starting to
>> move some code to C++. Whether this is a good chunk of code to convert is
>> another question.
>
>
This merge brings PPH into 4.8.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
FYI.
I have sent the application form for this year's summer of code
program (http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/homepage/google/gsoc2012).
We will know whether we are selected by 16/Mar. If we are selected to
participate, Ian and I will act as program administrators again.
Diego.
We are glad to announce that GCC has been accepted Google's Summer of
Code 2012 program (GSoC 2012). Summer of Code is a program sponsored
by Google in which students are paid to contribute to open source
projects. This will be GCC's 7th year of participation. For more
information, see http://
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 13:19, David Malcolm wrote:
> Hope this is constructive.
It is.
Parts of your proposal are instances of the modularity effort that has
been going on for some time. It also touches on some of the same
topics discussed in http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ImprovementProjects.
It w
This merge brings the branch up to 4.8.
Bootstrapped on x86_64.
On 3/25/12 1:19 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
When GCC won't be compilable any more by a C (not C++) compiler, should we make
that a
prominent& documented change? I believe it should also be reflected in our
configure
machinery (by rejecting the build of GCC when a C++ compiler is not ava
On 3/25/12 1:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Yes. For GCC 4.8, we should move to:
- Build all stages with C++
- Remove the option to go back to C.
That would mean you can start to use C++ in the compiler code although, AFAIK,
we are still waiting for the long-promised C++ Coding Standard. That s
I just stumbled into this video animation showing a graphical
representation of GCC's source tree over the years.
It is a bit long, but it's amusing to recognize big events in GCC
(addition of Java, Ada, tree-ssa, etc) over time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEAlhVOZ8qQ
It lasts around 3
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 17:36, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The proposed coding guidelines have been published and will evolve
>> (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions). No point waiting to settle a
>> set of rules that will naturally change over time, as we start using it.
>
> That isn't what was d
On 3/29/12 3:01 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
But I feel I don't wear the same hat as a plugin developer and as a GCC
contributor.
Yes, you do. You are both a GCC contributor and a plugin developer. As
such, you are in a unique position to know the needs of both sides.
Cleaning up the
On 3/30/12 8:52 AM, Subrata Biswas wrote:
Dear All,
I want to contribute GCC during this summer as my GSoC project and even
after this summer as an active member of GCC community. I have heard about
the essential legal documentation process and I also send a request mail to
assignme...@gnu.org ye
On 3/31/12 1:51 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
If we want to aim towards a more modular GCC made of several shared libraries,
it seems
that we are requiring the host system to have dynamic libraries (which is not a
big deal
today; all the major OSes running on developers desktop or laptop hav
We would like to start the process to make GCC 4.8 build in C++ mode by
default.
The mechanics of the change are simple enough. I volunteer to test
changing the default on all primary targets (assuming I can get them
from the GCC build farm).
Concurrently with this, Lawrence and Ian are w
On 4/4/12 5:06 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Btw, I think we should only start forcing C++ when 1) there is a
branch/patch out
that shows benefit from using C++. I previously mentioned that I'd like to see
2) a patch that _properly_ wraps a C++ class for consumption by our garbage
collector (thus
On 4/3/12 9:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
I appreciate the motivation, but this may cause major problems on
non-GNU/Linux platforms. Testing on all primary targets is not
enough.
I can test on other targets, as well. What targets do you have in mind?
If I don't have access to them, I'll nee
On 4/4/12 8:04 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
I agree for the idea of converting all of GCC to C++ (whatever that means).
Right. The conversion that does happen, can be gradual. One other big
advantage I see in this effort, is the transition to commonly used
programming idioms and patterns.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 09:04, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
>>
>> Is anyone currently working or this?
>>
>> I'm not experienced in the code base, but this project seems fascinating.
>
> I'm not aware of anyone - so go ahead (if you happen to have
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:24, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Which means never, because I think it's a prerequesite for switching?
No. I was not clear. By "done", I meant that GCC builds with C++ in
all the platforms we can test.
I'm sending a testing plan later today with the list of targets I
th
I have started testing the switch to C++ and there is a pile of
testing to be done. The testing itself is trivial, but the number of
targets that need to be tested is large and I don't have access to all
these combinations.
My proposal is to make sure that C++ builds work with:
- Primary targets
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 13:15, Marc Glisse wrote:
> I would expect most problems to be related to the host, and more
> specifically the compiler used to initiate the build, not so much the
> target. Or is this aiming specifically for targets that only get
> cross-compilers and thus don't have stag
On 4/7/12 4:09 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
For *-rtems* all test results are cross with tests run on simulators.
We use a native compiler bulit from the same source for testing.
Newlib is the C library and built at the same time.
Do we need to enable any special flags from our existing configure?
An update on the GNU Tools Cauldron (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012)
If you are starting to organize your trip, we have added some
suggestions about accomodation on the Cauldron page. We have not
negotiated special prices with any hotel in Prague.
If you need an invitation letter for a vi
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 20:26, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Done for i386-unknown-freebsd10.0 (GCC 4.2 as system compiler).
> No problems.
Thanks!
Diego.
On 4/10/12 8:41 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote:
Hi,
I have added two entries:
alpha64-dec-openvms - currently as failed. I still have to investigate the
support of weak symbols by the assembler
ia64-hp-openvms - pass. But it requires some patches for Ada.
Thanks. If the alpha64 failure is due t
On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
If you see
On 4/10/12 9:27 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Do these have to be tested as native compilers or cross compilers?
It doesn't really matter. As long as stage 1 is built with the host C++
compiler, either type of build should be fine.
Diego.
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++
compilers. Thanks.
If you see a missing target that should be tested, by all means, add
it
On 4/10/12 9:59 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
Tested x86_64-apple-darwin10, pdp11-aout -- both pass.
Thanks.
Diego.
On 4/10/12 12:05 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Also, it will be more convenient to make this change incrementally,
but the GCC community probably will not see much benefit until the
transition is complete. That also means developers assert
On 4/10/12 12:28 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Rainer Orth wrote:
Marc Glisse writes:
Thanks for the heads-up, that saved me time and effort. Do you have CRs
for the CC bugs?
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=7073578
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.d
On 4/10/12 12:42 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
What is the root cause of the annoyance? Mixing macros and inline
functions does not sound good, but using deeply nested macros do not
seem to help the debugging situation either.
That when ste
On 4/10/12 6:04 PM, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
2012/4/5 Diego Novillo
I will be, after the switch to C++ is done. Pedro, if you do have a
copyright assignment, feel free to start working on this. I suggest
creating a branch for this (I can handle that today). If you need
forms for the copyright
On 4/11/12 11:19 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Diego Novillo writes:
On 4/10/12 10:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
sparc-sun-solaris2.11 in progress, could add other OS versions (Solaris
9 to 11) if desired.
That would be great, particularly if they use different host C++ compilers.
The sparc-sun
I have created the SVN branch cxx-conversion to host all the
mini-projects aimed at exploring the C++ conversion. Everyone is
welcome to contribute to it.
The branch has been configured to build in C++ mode by default.
I have also created a wiki page to coordinate conversion efforts
and document
On 4/11/12 1:33 PM, Peter Bigot wrote:
(Resent to right list.)
I'm maintaining an out-of-tree back-end (Texas Instruments MSP430)
based on years of contributions from a variety of people, affecting
binutils, gcc, and gdb. Whether it can ever be merged (some of the
original contributors have dis
On 4/11/12 3:44 PM, Paweł Sikora wrote:
will this project use (new) gcc mailing list or should we poison ;)
the core gcc@ list with [cxx-conversion] marker?
This is no different than any other development branch. We use tagging
to distinguish patches and messages related to it.
Diego.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 14:48, David Weatherford wrote:
> Tests pass for xtensa-unknown-elf on 64-bit linux with host gcc 4.6.3.
Thanks!
Diego.
On 4/12/12 3:11 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
Hello Diego,
what is with targets that only use cross compilers like RTEMS? I think
there is no need for a bootstrap?
No. I'm mostly interested in the stage 0 compiler used in those
targets. I want to decide what we should recommend as a minimum g+
On 4/12/12 6:23 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
How about a warning level?
-W0: no warnings (equivalent to -w)
-W1: default
-W2: equivalent to the current -Wall
-W3: equivalent to the current -Wall -Wextra
I like this suggestion a lot.
Indeed.
On 4/12/12 11:34 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The *-rtems4* toolchains I supply for RTEMS currently are hosted on
CentOS5+6, openSUSE 11.3+12.1, Fedora 15+16+17, mingw32 and cygwin,
using these OSes' native toolchains.
Other folks have reported to build these toolchains under different
*BSDs and M
On 4/12/12 3:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 12 April 2012 19:53, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Why does saving/editing a page on the GCC wiki take several minutes to
reload the page?
By several I mean in excess of ten minutes where my browser is still
spinning saying the page is loading!
Yes. I'
On 4/12/12 3:40 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
"Diego" == Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> Tom, I'm thinking of that patch on black listing functions. There was
Diego> also the idea of a command that would only step in the outermost
Diego> function call of an expression.
That
On 4/13/12 3:37 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Thanks for the clue. I think Tobias Schwinge is the only person who
gets notifications from the GCC wiki, but maybe his mail server is the
culprit.
I generally subscribe to pages I author to watch for spammy edits.
Diego.
On 4/17/12 12:19 AM, Josh Cogliati wrote:
I would like to make a contribution to gcc. What copyright assignment
paperwork do I need to do this and what do I need to get from my
employer?
Sent forms off-list.
Diego.
We have decided to terminate the thread safety annotation project in
GCC.
The current implementation is in the branch google/main for those
interested in using it. We will not be pursuing a merge into trunk.
Instead, we have started implementing the same functionality in Clang.
I've updated th
On 4/19/12 4:14 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
How do you know it is a major effort? Has any issues related to
changing Tuple/front-ends AST been raised to the mailing list and
asked for help on how to implement these changes?
The kind of analysis that Annotalysis needs cannot be catered by GIMPLE,
On 4/25/12 1:37 AM, Brett Foster wrote:
When I add:
register_callback (BaseName, PLUGIN_FINISH_TYPE, CinsGcc_CB_Type, NULL);
The plugin appears to be loaded by a 2nd process, initialized, and
provided with what appears to be much the same data (at least from my
view).
That's correct.
[ Please do not send html mail. It will be rejected by the list server. ]
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:16, wrote:
> That much I understand. But it's cc1 that is in two processes, and gcc -v
> only shows it being invoked once. Finally the output on stderr is only from
> one of the two processes.
I had to adjust a couple of files and a test case, but other than
that, no surprises.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
This merge brings cxx-conversion up to rev 186847.
I added an xfail manifest file for x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. When
testing patches, please use
contrib/testsuite-management/validate_failures.py to check for new failures.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
An update on the GNU Tools Cauldron (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012)
We have published an initial schedule for the workshop. It is
available at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2012.
Presenters, please double-check your entries. If you find
anything missing or wrong, please contact me and
I've just merged cxx-conversion up to rev 187449.
Diego.
This is rather old code for you folks, but I'm not quite sure how to
deal with this issue.
I've converted vec.[hc] to C++ and this meant some subtle changes to how
VEC(T,stack) works. We no longer need all those macro expansions.
This means that the allocation function for vectors can dete
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Diego Novillo writes:
>
>> I've converted vec.[hc] to C++ and this meant some subtle changes to
>> how VEC(T,stack) works. We no longer need all those macro expansions.
>
> But it took me hours to write th
For those of you attending the Cauldron meeting in Prague in July, RMS
will be in town and will come by to give a talk on the first day of the
meeting.
See you there!
I've merged trunk into gimple-front-end (rev 187836).
I've added a manifest file to use with
contrib/testsuite-management/validate_failures.py.
Sandeep, this will be useful when we start having more gimple tests (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Testing_GCC#Using_validate_failures.py). You
can
901 - 1000 of 1389 matches
Mail list logo
