https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #61 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Now, the headline would be:
"Physik FU-Berlin, Microchip, Google, RedHat, IBM and more to Support Abuse,
Discrimination and even 'IT-fascism' via/on GCC/GNU/FSF Project-Resources".
See, nobod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #60 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Notable sub-message:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570039.html
And the final essence, from:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/570044.html
"
GCC issue,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
--- Comment #6 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
All good. Just be aware that the usual OSS "volunteer excuse" is a bit cheap in
a project where names like Apple, Google, IBM, Redhat, ARM etc. appear.
My understanding is that complaints need
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #59 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Oh my, what a mess:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
--- Comment #4 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
This is essentially a bug in gcc's component "web". The website should inform
clearly who can one contact (either in public or in private) to make a formal
complaint.
This is rally nothing spe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
abebeos at lazaridis dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #58 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Well, now I'm really really curious.
Does the gcc project have at least some(!) liberal qualities, or will
IT-fascism win?
Follow-up:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100480
Bug ID: 100480
Summary: Where to file complaints re project-maintainers?
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #57 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Just fascinating!
Bountysource violated its own processes, and payed out the bounty without
waiting for the votes.
See, even without a dispute, there is a 2 week voting period ("The bounty wi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #56 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Oh, Mr. Glaubitz, thank you for your opinion.
It is you very personal choice to ignore "integration work" and label "reuse of
existent results" as "copy". I assume this does not reflect on pol
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #54 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Bounty Claim:
Please not that "saaadhu"s patch was "shelved". I integrated a validation-setup
and tested several existent solutions, and identified during the "reuse
existent work" phase of my
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #52 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
All good, found it:
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=3ba781d3b5c8efadb60866c9743b657e8f0eb222
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #51 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
@Senthil, can you please provide the links to the commits? I was unable to
locate them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #50 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Great!
It looks that bountysource does not allow to split a bounty.
Any suggestions on how to process this further?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98574
Bug ID: 98574
Summary: Make gcc-jenkins an OSS Project
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/jenkins
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #47 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Relevant news:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/562114.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #46 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
This addresses the Bounty-Backers:
https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu/blob/master/doc/README.md
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #45 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #40)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #39)
[...]
> I spend nearly a full-(over)-time month to achieve a result, fighting
> through incompl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
abebeos at lazaridis dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||chertykov at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #43 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
The patch is now (after further validation zero regressions within gcc/g++
testsuite in 2 different test-setups) "out there":
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561718.htm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #42 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
from Dimitar Dimitrov dimi...@dinux.eu within
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561489.html
> I tested the trees you have given with my own AVR test setup [1]. I confirm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #41 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
[RFC] [avr] Toolchain Integration for Testsuite Execution (avr cc0 to mode_cc0
conversion)
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-December/561427.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #40 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #39)
> (In reply to abebeos from comment #38)
> > Can someone please ping gcc-patches (me having troubles setting up email
> > alias on gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #38 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Can someone please ping gcc-patches (me having troubles setting up email alias
on gmail, don't want to use my main email)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #37 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #36 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Created attachment 49686
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49686&action=edit
Patch by Senthil Kumar Selvaraj, non-cc0-avr-backend
this should(!) be the final patch, derived
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #35 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #11)
> (In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
> [...]
> > The main problem is apparently that the target hasn't been properly worked
> > on f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #34 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #29)
[...]
> I will today focus on publishing my test-setup, so that my test-results can
> be peer-reviewed. Should be available within 12 hours, max 36.
[...]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #33 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #31)
[...]
> The question will also be who will get to claim the bounty? If everyone
> contributes something, it will be more difficult to de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #32 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #30)
> (In reply to abebeos from comment #29)
> > My understanding is that you have already contributor status here, so could
> > you make the patch av
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #29 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to abebeos from comment #23)
> (In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #21)
> > (https://github.com/saaadhu/gcc-avr-cc0/tree/avr-cc0-squashed)
>
> I can still do a test-run,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #28 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #21)
[...]
> I don't have the spare time now to start full fledged work on this, but I
> can help with any issues you run into.
Just a question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #27 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
The "contrib/compare_tests" created a wrong delta.
"contrib/dg-cmp-results.sh seems to produce a more concise delta, and it shows
that...
==> ...we are down to essentially 6 issues:
PASS->FA
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #26 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #24)
> Amending / adjusting
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Building_Cross_Toolchains_with_gcc
> (the only place that somewhat "documents" how to setup AVR t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #25 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #22)
[...]
> > https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html
FSF has a fascinating way to make trivial things complicate
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #23 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Senthil Kumar Selvaraj from comment #21)
> (https://github.com/saaadhu/gcc-avr-cc0/tree/avr-cc0-squashed)
I can still do a test-run, to see if it produces less fails than pip's on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #20 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Testsuite comparison on local dev system looks quite good:
https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu/issues/1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #19 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
pipcet, thank you for your quick response (both here and within email).
I think all here will agree that there's no need to apologize, as family/health
should always come first.
As for your w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #17 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
Things look well, me being on 2 parallel solution paths:
a) using https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729#c6 as a foundation.
b) focusing more on a from-scratch work (cc0 eliminati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #16 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
I've updated the bounty, and you can follow the work here:
https://github.com/abebeos/avr-gnu
Whenever something relevant happens, I'll report it here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #14 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #12)
> [...]you'll have to resolve conflicts.
(In reply to Georg-Johann Lay from comment #13)
> FYI, avrtest is here:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/win
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
--- Comment #11 from abebeos at lazaridis dot com ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #10)
[...]
> The main problem is apparently that the target hasn't been properly worked
> on for a long time.
[...]
Yes, this seems to resul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92729
abebeos at lazaridis dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abebeos at lazaridis dot co
43 matches
Mail list logo
