Re: libffi & powerpc

2007-05-15 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-05-11)

2007-05-15 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: 4.3 release plan

2007-05-18 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: 4.3 release plan

2007-05-18 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: I don't understand some of gcc-4.1-20070514, a patch here.

2007-05-21 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: I don't understand some of gcc-4.1-20070514, a patch here.

2007-05-21 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: 4.3 release plan

2007-05-21 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: help writing gcc code

2007-05-21 Thread Mike Stump
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...

Re: The best testsuite result on Linux/x86-64 in months

2007-05-23 Thread Mike Stump
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,

Re: Bribing a reviewer

2007-05-29 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: fixinclude, math.h and Darwin???

2007-05-30 Thread Mike Stump
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.

Re: linking problem with boost

2007-06-05 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: libjava is a train wreck.

2007-06-05 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: how to build executable instructions blocks dynamically

2007-06-06 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-06-07)

2007-06-08 Thread Mike Stump
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.

Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-06-07)

2007-06-08 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: Status of simulator targets after dataflow merge

2007-06-16 Thread Mike Stein
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

Re: How to supress a specific kind of ansi-aliasing rules?

2007-06-20 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: old intentional gcc bug?

2007-06-24 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: relation between gcc/glibc version and linux kernel version??

2007-06-24 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: old intentional gcc bug?

2007-06-25 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: [gnu.org #220291] Copyright assignment

2007-06-25 Thread Mike Stump
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.

Re: get complete type

2007-07-02 Thread Mike Stump
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.

Re: no_new_pseudos

2007-07-09 Thread Mike Stump
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... :-)

Re: Host/Target confusion in Dwarf output

2007-07-12 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: incremental compiler project

2007-07-13 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: Objective-C 2.0 in GCC

2007-12-18 Thread Mike Stump
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

Re: Objective-C 2.0 in GCC

2007-12-18 Thread Mike Stump
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...

Impressive music!

2013-09-21 Thread Mike Mainstream Media
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

dejagnu version update?

2020-05-13 Thread Mike Stump via Gcc
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

back to cvs, cool

2020-05-13 Thread Mike Stump via Gcc
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.

Re: dejagnu version update?

2020-05-15 Thread Mike Stump via Gcc
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

Re: WWDC thread: support for darwin/macOS going forward

2020-06-26 Thread Mike Stump via Gcc
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

Connecting From LinkedIn

2022-08-14 Thread Mike Nawas via Gcc
-- I have been trying to contact you. Is This Email Still Active??

Re: [gnu.org #220291] Copyright assignment

2007-06-25 Thread Mike Stump via RT
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.

Re: [gnu.org #220291] Copyright assignment

2007-06-25 Thread Mike Stump via RT
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.

<    6   7   8   9   10   11