On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 20:51 +, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021, 20:03 Nathan Sidwell, wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to
> > remove
> > Richard
> > Stallman (RMS) from the SC, or, shoul
the code of conduct
> he
> helped author. wiredferret's twitter feed.
> 8. I understand he’s tried to circumvent such codes of conduct by asking
> women to meet him outside of the conference venue. _sagesharp_'s twitter feed.
> 9. He doesn’t acknowledge the few wome
someone who hasn't even been present
in the community can't be expected to make any real difference to that
matter; it would rather make us seem *less* welcoming and more
intolerant, and suggest other motivations for the move.
Let's be real and honest, when was the last time an
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 13:40 Alexandre Oliva via Gcc, wrote:
>
> What could support any rational belief that having RMS one extra level
> removed from our technical community would bring about anything
> resembling a solution to the very undesirable and unjust gender
> imbalance y
On Mar 27, 2021, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> But listing his name on our web page as a leader of the project
> surely makes a difference to how the project is perceived.
You're probably right that it does, just maybe not quite in the way you
seem to perceive it.
The Free Software community is a lo
n and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:12 AM
> From: "Siddhesh Poyarekar"
> To: "Alexandre Oliva" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
&
Didier Kryn writes:
> I'm terrified by this campaign of harassment against the person who
> has given the biggest contribution to free software.
FWIW I find this terrifying too. What scare me the most is that people
supporting RMS are indeed scared of coming out publicly by the
aggressivene
Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 8:49 AM
> From: "Martin Liška"
> To: "Nathan Sidwell" , "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On 3/26/21 9:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> > Dear mem
Hello,
I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be
able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with
option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for by
single binary.
If so i could try myself at adding such feature to gcc
On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 23:38 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to ask whether there would be interest in the project to be
> able to build a single binary of gcc where target would be selectable with
> option flags ie more than one target could be included and aimed for
Hmm,
Thanks. Not sure I can see answer from him. Ill recheck it.
Best regards,
Pawel Kunio
niedz., 28.03.2021, 01:27 użytkownik Jonathan Wakely
napisał:
>
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2021, 23:38 pawel k. via Gcc, wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>> I would like to ask whether there
)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 2:27 PM
> From: "Óscar Fuentes"
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 02:20 pawel k., wrote:
> Hmm,
> Thanks. Not sure I can see answer from him. Ill recheck it.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235079.html
n, 28 Mar 2021, 02:20 pawel k., wrote:
>
>> Hmm,
>> Thanks. Not sure I can see answer from him. Ill recheck it.
>>
>
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235079.html
>
>
>
>
e I can see answer from him. Ill recheck it.
>>
>
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235079.html
>
>
>
>
, 2021 at 12:48 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-03-25 at 14:52 +0530, Saloni Garg via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I am an undergraduate student in AMU, Aligarh. I am interested in the
> > project* `Extend the static analysis pass`. *I have followed this(
> > https:
port to the local police
> station to get her house raided and arrested) for simply saying the
> same things we are discussing here now.
>
> I witnessed something similar recently when we had setup the
> mailinglist to discuss improving governance of the GNU project. When a
> female GNU
to be created that weren't in the original
CFGs or callgraph (for the interprocedural case).
I think an implementation of exception-handling would look somewhat
similar.
> Please, let me know your thoughts on this.
Looks like you're making a great start.
Hope this is helpful
Dave
Dear GCC Community,
Hi. My name is JeanHeyd Meneide, my online moniker is "ThePhD"
(not an actual Doctor. Yet!). I spend a lot of my time hacking on C
and C++. Some of the things I've done include:
- Contributing (mostly) a Implementation [1]
- Doing a GSoC for GCC and w
Hello, Siddhesh,
Thanks for clarifying your understanding of Nathan's goal.
I may indeed have misread and mistaken Nathan's goal and means.
I thought the goal was to improve the GCC community by addressing the
gender imbalance, and that the means (misguided, IMHO) was to distance
ours
Setting aside whether or not RMS should be associated with the GCC
project for a bit, I'm particularly concerned about the tone of some of
the messages on this thread. People can and will have differences, and
that is fine. But the discussion needs to stay civil.
To those who
On Mar 28, 2021, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Nathan posted today's followup.
Erhm... Nathan, please accept my apologies.
I misread someone else's message under the false impression
it had come from you.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist
On 3/27/2021 2:49 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 3/26/21 9:02 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove
Richard Stallman (RMS)
I do fully support Nathan's request.
Speaking strictly for myself, not as a representative of the ste
(Geocomputation)
- Geophysical Simulation
- Geological Subsurface Mapping
- Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
- Natural Resource Exploration and Production
- Free Software Advocacy
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 12:47 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "GCC Development
On Mar 28, 2021, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It shows we don't tolerate harassment in our project.
It shows we will favor and engage in harassment against a certain
demographic group, while pretending or believing it will somehow
make for a welcoming atmosphere.
> everybody I talked to about it had
ent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 6:13 AM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:33:15A
e than you ever will.
On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 19:43 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
>
>
> -
> Christopher Dimech
> General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation)
> - Geophysical Simulation
> - Geological Subsurface Mappin
highly misguided. Money and power often buy what
they shouldn't.
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 at 11:21 AM
> From: "Soul Studios"
> To: "Mark Wielaard" , "GCC Development"
> Cc: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC S
e-fu for sources. I emailed
> several members of the SC, and don't want to bomb them with yet a third copy.
> ]
>
> Dear members of the GCC Steering Committee (SC), I ask you to remove Richard
> Stallman (RMS) from the SC, or, should you chose not to do so, make a clear
> s
> I think I will leave this discussion up to those who have more
> familiarity with the guy than I do. There's no doubt that some of the
> stuff Stallman has written creeps me the hell out, and I think it was
> more the tone of the OP I objected to.
I mostly want to stay out of this and will le
Greetings,
I saw a task on your site for GSoC called <>. I am very interested in it, and I would
like to know if it is possible to do it this summer. I have experience
in C/C++ development as well as experience in related fields. I know how
to compile GCC, and I have a top-level understand
021 at 9:41 AM
> From: "Soul Studios"
> To: "Richard Kenner"
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, m...@klomp.org, nat...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
>
> On 30/03/2021 1:18 am, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >> I think I
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:09 PM
> From: "Ian Lance Taylor"
> To: "Christopher Dimech"
> Cc: "Soul Studios" , "GCC Development"
> , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell"
>
> Subject: Re: Remove RM
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 12:20 PM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, Mark W
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 1:30 PM
> From: "Thomas Rodgers"
> To: "Ian Lance Taylor" , "GCC Development"
> , "Mark Wielaard" , "Nathan Sidwell"
>
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On
Joseph,
On Mar 29, 2021, Joseph Myers wrote:
> This is based on the longstanding,
> well-documented patterns of how he has misbehaved towards women,
I have a great deal of respect for your attention to detail.
I can hardly believe you would make such a claim without having actually
looked int
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, 08:48 mfriley via Gcc, wrote:
> For the record, I am not a GNU contributor--I am only chiming in as a
>
> FOSS sympathizer. I will not pretend to be unbiased, or to have any sort
>
> of personal experience with, or extensive knowledge of, RMS's behavio
Hello,
just trying again to increase visibility of this question. Many thanks
in advance!
On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 at 13:49, Erick Ochoa wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I already have some experience developing SIMPLE_IPA_PASSes, but I am
> looking to understand IPA_PASSes better. I have made a hello world ip
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, 02:34 Christopher Dimech via Gcc,
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Insofar as Stallman is the foundation of all authority, He exercises that
> foundation because He is the founder of His own work. He is the foundation
> upon which all other authority stands or f
On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 11:13 Richard Biener via Gcc, wrote:
>
> I do think that the request at hand puts specific pressure on the SC
> members that
> is unwarranted - you ask for them to respond but they are likely powerless
> as to
> the actual request.
I don't think the
Hi,
I am looking at the points-to analysis in GCC and I found the
following comment in tree-ssa-structalias.c:
/* Collect field information. */
if (use_field_sensitive
&& var_can_have_subvars (decl)
/* ??? Force us to not use subfields for globals in IPA mode.
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 10:48, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> > I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
> > all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
>
> Can you rem
On 3/30/21 10:47 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
>> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
>> all I can think of is the DNS records for gcc.gnu.org.
>
> Can you remind the mean
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 10:47 AM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> > Le 30/03/2021 à 10:25, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc a écrit :
> >> I've been asking myself what benefit GCC gets from being linked to GNU and
> >> all I can think of
directly
> updating the program counter, registers and stack, potentially popping
> multiple stack frames. This is similar to what throwing an exception
> does.
>
> So I'd recommend looking at the analyzer's implementation of
> setjmp/longjmp, the custom classes that I a
hello sir
in my quest of finding a bug ( which ended up being a feature ) along with it’s
source in the analyzer, I tested the code on these 2 code snippets and here’s
how I went towards it
(1)
int main()
{
int *ptr = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int));
return 0;
}
link to running example (h
On 3/30/21 11:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> We could just rename it to "GCC", in much the same way that Acorn Risc
>> Machine became Advanced Risc Machines, then just "Arm". But I'd much
>&
I hereby announce my intent to offer online tutoring with the goal of
helping reduce democraphic imbalances in the GCC development community.
My planned focus is the implementation, in GCC, of the ISA extensions to
OpenPOWER in the upcoming Libre-SOC processor in GCC, but I may also
cover some
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 10:52 AM Erick Ochoa via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am looking at the points-to analysis in GCC and I found the
> following comment in tree-ssa-structalias.c:
>
> /* Collect field information. */
> if (use_field_sensitive
> &a
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 12:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 3/30/21 11:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 11:14, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> >> We could just rename it to "GCC", in much the same way that Acorn Risc
> >> Machine became Advan
> If the global is module local we should initialize it with NULL, yes. If it
> is
> not module local it should be initialized with NONLOCAL (that's both what
> should currently happen correctly - it's needed for non-field-sensitive init
> as well).
>
Awesome, thanks Richard! One more question:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 1:39 PM Erick Ochoa wrote:
>
> > If the global is module local we should initialize it with NULL, yes. If
> > it is
> > not module local it should be initialized with NONLOCAL (that's both what
> > should currently happen correctly - it's needed for non-field-sensitive in
> For a leadership position, which serves as an example for
> the community and to some extent demonstrates the values shared by the
> community, I think it is reasonable that there is a decreased
> expectation of privacy.
.. and libel and defamation laws in the US reflect that, for example.
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2021 at 11:55 PM
> From: "Richard Kenner"
> To: dim...@gmx.com
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, m...@klomp.org, m...@soulstudios.co.nz, nat...@acm.org
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> > Here is something close t
> I respect that you want stay out of the discussion, but I think that to
> present this as some larger societal issue which is somewhat academic
> is wrong.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say or imply that. What I meant to say is
that the very specific discussion we're having in this forum *mirrors*
t
;
> > That's something new. I also didn't know that. I believe we can
> > shift our
> minimal example to just func() and remove main().
Yes - simpler is better with such examples.
(Occasionally it's helpful to have "main" so that the resulting code
can be exec
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 1:16 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Nathan Sidwell"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Nathan and hello everybody,
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021
Dear GCC Community ,
I am planning to contribute in Rust-GCC project (
https://github.com/Rust-GCC) , so I think it will be good to have the
copyright assignment from now on .
Waiting for your reply ,
George Liakopoulos
Replied off-list.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 9:49 AM George Liakopoulos via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Dear GCC Community ,
>
> I am planning to contribute in Rust-GCC project (
> https://github.com/Rust-GCC) , so I think it will be good to have the
> copyright assignment from now on .
&g
gimple representation of both looks exactly the same apart
> from function name, which made me think that either intentionally or
> unintentionally, analyzer handles case of main() differently than any
> other function.
Correct - the analyzer special-cases "main".
Specifically,
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> I would rather not have to write this email. Like many developers, I just want
> to write code. Right now we’re working towards the GCC 11 release. I thought
> about deferring this email. Bu
> 3. Most of claims about Stallman are not true (to be more precise -
> they are deliberately misrepresent what Stallman said to make his
> views to look immoral).
I would like to suggest that this discussion will go better without
making accusations that people are "deliberately" doing something.
have been participating in
this thread are also not from the USA.
I am also of the opinion that legally wrong does not equal morally
wrong. RMS does not have to have committed a crime for the developers
of GCC, the SC or whoever, to feel like he is not representing their
values as a member of t
would drive away people from contributing GCC
The first is that I don't want to get into the conversation about
how the FSF handles Stallman. Other than them having my Copyright
assignment (something I also need to take a look at), the FSF does not
write the code. GCC's contributors, like
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
> From: "Martin Jambor"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Dear Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Dear Giacomo,
Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
it, but this paragraph:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 5:45 AM
> From: "Joseph Myers"
> To: "JeanHeyd Meneide"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 2021, JeanHeyd Men
On 3/30/21 7:10 PM, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 4:50 AM
From: "Martin Jambor"
To: "Giacomo Tesio"
Cc: "GCC Development"
Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
Dear Giacomo,
On Tue, Mar 30 2021, Giaco
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:23, Alan Lehotsky wrote:
>
> I’m doing some final polishing on a gcc 8.3 upgrade and taking a look at the
> unsupported tests. Most of them are completely sensible (my port doesn’t
> support trampolines, for example). But gcc.c-torture/execute/pr78622.c
Giacomo wrote:
>Stallman cannot betray Free Software AND get away with it.
>So to me (and to many others) Stallman is a sort of a living warranty.
That's fine. He doesn't need to be in the GCC SC to do that.
He can continue to provide guidance on the spirit of Free Software
with
ation)
> - Geophysical Simulation
> - Geological Subsurface Mapping
> - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation
> - Natural Resource Exploration and Production
> - Free Software Advocacy
>
>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 9:55 AM
> *From:* "Andrew Sutton&qu
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc wrote:
> My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stands credibly and
> factually accused of Doxxing and GCC contributor/participant and
> knowingly manipulating the project for his own personal reasons.
This accusation is outright false, b
Dear Alexandre,
As stated here, shortly after I sent my message
(https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-March/235197.html):
> Apologies, a correction here. I should have more carefully read
> it, but this paragraph:
>
> > My problem is Dr. Richard M. Stallman stan
On Mar 30, 2021, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote:
> Taking the correction into account
*nod*
> What you've presented here is your word ("This
> accusation is outright false, beyond any possible doubt."),
True, I didn't claim to be offering evidence, and that didn't seem
necessary since all the su
Dear Alfred and Alexandre,
It seems that neither of you would like to offer any evidence
that counteracts what I have already been given by multiple
individuals. Furthermore,
Alexandre:
> A misguided person thought that reciprocating the doxxing against RMS
> was a good way to defend him. I
To me (not being a contributor) this is the best contribution to the
discussion so far.
Am 30.03.2021 um 17:24 schrieb Maksim Fomin via Gcc:
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, 26 March 2021 г., 23:02, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
I would rather not have to write this email. Like many
Code, your idea on
extend the static analysis pass is really impressive. Right now the code is in
GCC’s master branch for GCC 10 and can be tried out on Compiler Explorer, aka
godbolt.org. It works well for small and medium-sized examples, but there are
bugs that mean it’s not ready for producti
en and captures my thoughts when
writing my response to Nathan (but not willing to spend so much time
on this to coherently formulate what I was thinking).
And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents
all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance struct
be imploding (with mass
resignations in the past week). I don't think GCC benefits from being
associated with either of them.
Is there any incident where FSF being the copyright holder for GCC has
made a difference? Are there any GPL violations involving GCC code
that were resolved only because all cop
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 13:29, Richard Biener wrote:
> And just to repeat - all the GCC governance structure (the "SC") represents
> all of the same non-openess as the FSF governance structure (because
> the "SC" is in fact appointed by the Chief GNUisance "or his
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >
> > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't really what
> > people are discussing here. Although many probably sympathize with
&
Just one comment ...
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 12:30, Gagandeep Bhatia via Gcc wrote:
> Right now the code is in GCC’s master branch for GCC 10
N.B. the master branch is for GCC 11. Make sure you are using that,
not the gcc-10 branch, as there are lots of improvements to the static
analysis code.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:28 AM Richard Biener via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 1:36 PM Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > >
> > > You are referencing the recent open letter which isn't
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 14:30, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> But people, groups and incentives changes.
> Stallman does not.
Well, he's not immortal. Are you really suggesting that his crowning
achievement (the free software movement and copyleft) is actually not
sustainable, and only works if he's watchi
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:59 +0530, Gagandeep Bhatia via Gcc wrote:
> Hey Team GNU Compiler, I'm Gagandeep Bhatia, currently pursuing the
> 2nd year at Christ University, Bangalore, India. You can reach me at
> gagandeepbhatia2...@gmail.com <mailto:gagandeepbhatia2...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 at 11:34 PM
> From: "Mark Wielaard"
> To: "Giacomo Tesio"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Giacomo,
>
> On Tue, Mar
I may have lost it in the enormous flood of text, but I want to ask these
general questions.
1. Is there a published code of conduct for GCC community members, possibly
different ones depending on which level of the organization you're in?
2. Is there a formal process for receiving clai
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 1:28 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm a bit in
On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 16:18 +0200, Christopher Dimech via Gcc wrote:
[...snip...]
> As for the "safe spaces" phase, this is about eliminating anything
> and
> everything that could emotionally troubling students. This assumes a
> high
> degree of fragility among weste
Hello Jason,
Do you have any interest in the domain “*JavaSource.com*”?
Please let me know.
Regards,
Ellie
+1 (385) 999-3081
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>
> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm aware
> > of.
>
> What about the plugin framework? The libgcc licensing change would
> not have happe
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 11:28 AM PKU via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I’m trying to get my school to sign the copyright disclaimer. Unfortunately
> the officials are reluctant to do that. Can anyone suggest what to do next?
>
> They claim that university owns copyright to my c
On March 31, 2021 5:23:09 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn
wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 9:46 AM Florian Weimer
>wrote:
>>
>> * David Edelsohn via Gcc:
>>
>> > Has the GCC SC blocked any new port or major feature? Not that I'm
>aware of.
>>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2021 at 2:56 AM
> From: "David Malcolm"
> To: "Christopher Dimech" , "Mark Wielaard"
> Cc: "GCC Development" , "Nathan Sidwell"
> Subject: Re: Remove RMS from the GCC Steering Committee
>
&
at's something new. I also didn't know that. I believe we can
> > > shift our
> > minimal example to just func() and remove main().
>
> Yes - simpler is better with such examples.
>
> (Occasionally it's helpful to have "main" so that the resulting
> They claim that university owns copyright to my code if I wrote it
> for a school-related research project.
That's potentially correct. And the purpose of them signing the
disclaimer is to release that interest so that only you need to sign
the assignment.
The other way of doing it would be f
xample 2, maybe spell out why it's a leak - when does the
allocated buffer stop being referenceable?
- you have a simple example of a false negative; is it possible to give
a simple example of a false positive? (I think "new" is meant to raise
an exception if it fails, so a diagnostic
[I previously sent this from another email account, but it seems to be
lost. I am sending this on behalf of the GCC Steering Committee.]
In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
based on his role in the GNU Project, though his role as a member
of the Steering Committee has
On 3/31/2021 5:11 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
10 out of 13 members of the GCC steering committee work either for
American corporations (8), their subsidiaries (1) or an American
University (1) recently covered by the press in India [3].
Also, 4 of these work for the same corporation (IBM / Red
Giacomo Tesio writes:
> Hi David, thanks for sharing!
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:27:29 -0400 David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
>
>> In 2012 RMS was added to the GCC Steering Committee web page
>> based on his role in the GNU Project [...]
>> we are removing him from
3101 - 3200 of 10345 matches
Mail list logo
