On May 15, 2007, at 2:20 AM, Patrick Olinet wrote:
Finally, I've tried it the dirty way, ie by commenting out all the
"stfd" instructions at the beginning of the ppc_closure.S file and
things seem to work !!!
Wonderful. If you could, would you submit the patch to gcc-
patches... I suspect
On May 15, 2007, at 2:03 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
2007/5/12, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 11, 2007, at 3:36 PM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> On 5/12/07, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> PR 31797: An infinite loop in the compiler while building RTEMS.
&g
On May 18, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
has a release plan already been set for the 4.3 release?
Just take the dates between 4.1 and 4.2, and add to the 4.2, and
presto, you have the 4.3 times... Or, put another way, about 15
months from now.[1]
1 - YMMV, YGWYPF, PPINGOFR
On May 18, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Come on, 4.3 doesn't look in such a bad shape!
I'll let history decide...
1 - YMMV, YGWYPF, PPINGOFR
I got the first two, but what does the last one mean?
Wow, you're impressive... The second one I thought would be too
cryptic for
On May 19, 2007, at 11:54 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
We tried to be polite
And we should go back to being polite... He's email a patch
recently. That's buys him more niceness in my book. I think he does
want to help, he just needs more guidance. Our goal is to turn him
into a usef
On May 19, 2007, at 3:57 AM, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
you have this nice cleanup's patch of gcc/loop.c that
transliterates the logic
of the uses of the loop_invariant_p (..) and
consec_sets_invariant_p (..)
functions.
Please resubmit against 4.3 (the top of the svn tree)... This is the
cano
On May 21, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
The reason _we_ care to get 4.3 sooner rather than later
is that we'd like to have the AMD Geode tuning
Submit to gcc 4.2. Tuning seems to be the type of thing that should
be safe to backport, if you really must have it.
Anyway, these
On May 21, 2007, at 2:43 PM, AaronCloyd wrote:
I need to edit a gcc source code, then recompile.
Wrong list... gcc-help is closer that what you want...
On May 23, 2007, at 8:58 AM, H. J. Lu wrote:
The testsuite result, including both 32bit and 64bit, of gcc 4.3
revision 124987 on Linux/x86-64:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg01148.html
is the best in months.
So close, yet, so far... :-) If we pushed to get it down to zero,
On May 25, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Thomas Neumann wrote:
Unfortunately reviewing as been, ahem, a bit slow.
:-( I'd ask if the SC has had any luck finding suitable reviewers
yet... I do think Fortran has about the right number judging from the
latency on patch review. They have about 1 review
On May 29, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering if it is possible that our problem with these long
double calls in gfortran on Darwin PPC could be as simple as
gfortran not using this fixed math header on Darwin PPC.
No.
On Jun 5, 2007, at 10:26 AM, ronnie_raj wrote:
This is the first time I'm posting so sorry if I have posted this in
the
wrong forum...
I'd recommend the boost users list, then gcc-help... 3.3.5 is kinda
old, I'd probably recommend upgrading to 4.1.x if you can, it may well
just work bett
On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Steve Kargl writes:
Can someone explain why libjava *must* commit binary files to the
repository? A merge of trunk to the fortran-experiments branch
generated 70 conflicts that I need to resolve. This is a complete
waste of time that would have b
On Jun 6, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Gorgonite wrote:
I'm sorry if the answer has already been given, but I haven't
found :'(
Yes, it has, google will find it too... :-)
I want to build executable instructions blocks dynamically
Wrong list... You want a list that has something to do with the OS
On Jun 7, 2007, at 10:33 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I am aware of three remaining projects which are or might be
appropriate
for Stage 1:
I wasn't sure of the Objective-C 2.0 timing until recently... I'd
like to contribute it during stage 2.
On Jun 8, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
That's OK with me, but with two caveats:
We are in the final stages of releasing this, so most development and
testing has been done as well as ensuring that C and C++ are
unaffected. This should help us meet the safeness goals. Thanks for
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:31:02PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
The following targets worked as of "4.3.0 20070609" but don't any longer
(going by my own attempts to them build as well as missing postings to
gcc-testresults by mstein):
m68hc11-unknown-none http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc
On Jun 20, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Bokhanko, Andrey S wrote:
Actually, I'm interested in how to force conservative analysis
*without*
source code modifications (only with compiler's options).
While we'd recommend using a language called C, you might be able to
use -O0 or older compilers (3.3 and
On Jun 23, 2007, at 2:38 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
On the contrary, since gcc can always be built using third party C
compilers, it would be much easier to smoke out and eliminate any
such behavior (indeed this example shows the merit of maintaining
the property that gcc can be compiled by non
On Jun 24, 2007, at 9:32 PM, ganesh subramonian wrote:
I have a very basic doubt regarding gcc,binutils and kernel.
How closely tied are the linux kernel version and the gcc/glibc
versions?
Versions of gcc are never (much) dependent on kernel versions. They
are rarely dependent on glibc ve
On Jun 25, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Probably. But, as Mike told me privately, STABS are sensitive to
the build
directory, so I tried again and got identical executables byte-for-
byte:
Cool. Glad you could verify them on a byte for byte basis. This
helps keep your
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Hui-May Chang via RT wrote:
I thought I have completed it earlier. Can you check for me? Thanks!
Don't worry, they just spammed the entire list with a seemingly off-
list issue I think they just meant to ping Francois.
On Jul 2, 2007, at 2:48 AM, allozano wrote:
I need get the param type. For example
void f (std::string){...}
with Macros TYPE_NAME, TYPE_DECL,... i find the param is "string"
but I need "std::string"
Look for CONTEXT in *.h.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:04 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
OK, what do you think of this patch?
In hopes of ending this thread, I like this color of red... :-)
On Jul 12, 2007, at 9:23 AM, Michael Eager wrote:
I was looking through dwarf2out.c, tracking down the
cause for different assembly code being generated
when gcc was run on 32-bit and 64-bit hosts.
When QAing, it is very useful to be able to compare two .s files.
This means that we should st
On Jul 13, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
I've started work on a project to turn GCC into an incremental
compiler.
Sounds neat. :-)
The basic idea of the project is to run GCC as a server (similar in a
way to the old compile server branch) and try to minimize the amount
of re-compilatio
On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:45 PM, Sven Herzberg wrote:
I was just browsing the gcc-list to see if there are any updates on
the Objective-C 2.0 extensions. Can you please send and email to the
gcc-list with the current state?
I hope to be able to contribute them in the next year, but exactly
whe
On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:08 AM, Ismail Dönmez wrote:
Any schedule for fixing Obj-C++ regressions on mainline?
Same answer. My hope would be that people that introduce regressions
would fix them...
You've ben invited to gain access to our website. After reviewing some material
, I could see why. You have potential, and we have the power to give you an
advantage over your competition in this internet era. Enjoy!
GoMainstreamUk.com
Password: nmg
Thanks
Mike
I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads.
On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Comparing DejaGnu/GCC testsuite '*.sum' files between two systems ("old"
> vs. "new") that ought to return identical results, I found that they
> didn't:
> I have not
As seen in recent bug report:
CVS Commits 2020-05-12 20:40:40 UTC
I guess that git thing was a bust and we're back to using cvs now. At least
Ian did up the remote patches to make cvs work better.
On May 14, 2020, at 11:11 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> "Rob" == Rob Savoye writes:
>
> Rob> Not that team, the folks I talked to thought I was crazy for wanting
> Rob> to refactor it. :-)
>
> I don't think refactoring dejagnu is crazy, but I think it's pretty hard
> to imagine rewriting th
On Jun 22, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>
> Hi, at Apple's WWDC this year they have announced that they are doing
> yet another architecture transition, so I was wondering what exactly
> would be the best way to go about adding support for it?
I usually use emacs and git to add ports t
--
I have been trying to contact you.
Is This Email Still Active??
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Hui-May Chang via RT wrote:
> I thought I have completed it earlier. Can you check for me? Thanks!
Don't worry, they just spammed the entire list with a seemingly off-
list issue I think they just meant to ping Francois.
On Jun 25, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Hui-May Chang via RT wrote:
> I thought I have completed it earlier. Can you check for me? Thanks!
Don't worry, they just spammed the entire list with a seemingly off-
list issue I think they just meant to ping Francois.
1001 - 1036 of 1036 matches
Mail list logo