> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 17:45:20 +0200
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patc...@sourceware.org,
> binut...@sourceware.org
> From: Jakub Jelinek via Gdb-patches
>
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 04:21:44PM +0100, Nick Clifton via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > Currently the top level configure.ac file set
> From: Ian Lance Taylor
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 09:58:10 -0800
> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
>
> I'd rather that the patch look like the appended. Can someone with a
> Windows system test to see what that builds and passes the tests?
ENOPATCH
> From: Ian Lance Taylor
> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 06:35:21 -0800
> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
>
> > > On Windows it seems that MAX_PATH is not
> > > a true limit, as an extended length path may be up to 32767 bytes.
> >
> > The limit of 32767 characters (not by
> Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 15:00:56 -0800
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Ian Lance Taylor via Gcc
>
> > +#ifdef HAVE_WINDOWS_H
> > +
> > +static char *
> > +windows_get_executable_path (char *buf, backtrace_error_callback
> > error_callback,
> > +
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 11:47:42 +0100
> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Gabriel Ravier
>
>
> On 1/21/23 05:05, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:39:56 +0100
> >> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> >> From: G
> Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:18:14 +0800
> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> From: LIU Hao
>
> 在 2023-01-21 12:05, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc 写道:
> > I'm not sure I follow the logic. A program that calls
> > GetModuleHandleW will refuse to start on Windows that doesn't h
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:39:56 +0100
> Cc: g...@hazardy.de, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Gabriel Ravier
>
> >> - using wide APIs with Windows is generally considered to be a best
> >> practice, even when not strictly needed (and in this case I can't see
> >> any problem wi
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:46:59 +0100
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, g...@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Gabriel Ravier
>
> On 1/20/23 14:39, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
> >> From: Björn Schäpers
> >> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
> >>
> >> @@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct backtrace_state *
> From: Björn Schäpers
> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 11:54:08 +0100
>
> @@ -856,7 +870,12 @@ coff_add (struct backtrace_state *state, int descriptor,
> + (sections[i].offset - min_offset));
> }
>
> - if (!backtrace_dwarf_add (state, /* base_address */ 0, &dwarf_
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:54:49 +0100
> Cc: Martin Liška ,
> "g...@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches
> ,
> "Joseph S. Myers"
>
> You like texinfo. We get it.
Would you please drop the attitude?
> Cc: h...@bitrange.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> jos...@codesourcery.com
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:37:00 +0200
>
> > 4) The need to learn yet another markup language.
> > While this is not a problem for simple text, it does require a
> > se
> Cc: g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jos...@codesourcery.com
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 16:34:11 +0200
>
> > "Texinfo must go" is one possible conclusion from your description.
> > But it isn't the only one. An alternative is "the Texinfo source of
> > the GCC manu
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:05:11 +0100
> Cc: Martin Liška ,
> "g...@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches
> ,
> "Joseph S. Myers"
>
> To be clear, I give links to users frequently (several times a week,
> every week, for decades) and prefer to give them a link to spe
> From: Jonathan Wakely
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 14:53:44 +0100
> Cc: Martin Liška ,
> "g...@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches
> ,
> "Joseph S. Myers"
>
> For me, these items are enough justification to switch away from
> texinfo, which produces crap HTML pages with crap anchors.
If we
> Cc: g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jos...@codesourcery.com
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 15:25:47 +0200
>
> Let's make it a separate sub-thread where we can discuss motivation why
> do I want moving to Sphinx format.
Thanks for starting this discussion.
> Benefits:
> From: Richard Sandiford
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , g...@gcc.gnu.org,
> gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jos...@codesourcery.com
> Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2021 10:17:38 +0100
>
> Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> > I've read the discussion downthread, but I seem to miss (a recap
> > of) the benefits of moving to S
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii , g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
> jos...@codesourcery.com
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 11:40:06 +0200
>
> > It must
> > look sensible without that. In this case it seems that already the
> > generated .texinfo input to makeinfo is bad, where does
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 11:30:02 +0200
>
> > So the purpose of having the comma there is to avoid having a period
> > in the middle of a sentence, which is added by makeinfo (because the
> > Info readers
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 18:04:24 +0200
>
> > Emacs doesn't hide the period. But there shouldn't be a period to
> > begin with, since it's the middle of a sentence. The correct way of
> > writing this i
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:14:30 +0200
>
> >> If I understand the notes correct, the '.' should be also hidden by e.g.
> >> Emacs.
> >
> > No, it doesn't. The actual text in the Info file is:
> >
> >
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:44:10 +0200
>
> > It helps some, but not all of the issues disappear. For example,
> > stuff like this is still hard to read:
> >
> >To select this standard in GCC, use o
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 16:04:32 +0200
>
> > Thanks, but does that mean @var will no longer stand out in the
> > produced Info format? That'd be sub-optimal, I think, because a clear
> > reference to a
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:28:40 +0200
>
> >‘@`file'’
> >
> > Read command-line options from ‘`file'’. The options read are
> > inserted in place of the original ‘@`file'’ option.
> Cc: jos...@codesourcery.com, g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:11:03 +0200
>
> > (Admittedly, Emacs by default hides some of the text of a
> > cross-reference, but not hiding them in this case produces an even
> > less legible text.)
>
>
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:57:11 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii via Gcc
> Cc: g...@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jos...@codesourcery.com
>
> Or how about this:
>
> `Overall Options'
>
>See Options Controlling the Kind of Output.
>
>*note -c. *note -S. *note -E. *note -o
> From: Martin Liška
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:09:23 +0200
> Cc: GCC Development , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
> On 6/28/21 5:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Are formatted manuals (HTML, PDF, man, info) corresponding to this patch
> > version also available for review?
>
> I've just uploaded them
26 matches
Mail list logo
