> I was bootstrapping Ada as well until the end of last week. It seems
> to be broken right now, so I had turned Ada off until the issue is resolved.
Well, it's equivalent to knowingly breaking it further when you're making
systemic changes like these... A quick search with bugzilla would have
On 11/14/2013 06:56 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/14/13 16:00, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I was bootstrapping Ada as well until the end of last week. It seems
to be broken right now, so I had turned Ada off until the issue is
resolved.
Ada should be working again... At least on x86_64. I'm still lo
On 11/14/13 16:00, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I was bootstrapping Ada as well until the end of last week. It seems
to be broken right now, so I had turned Ada off until the issue is
resolved.
Ada should be working again... At least on x86_64. I'm still looking
at it on Itanic, but I suspect you
On 11/14/2013 05:06 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/14/2013 11:23 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
should) be nothing remaining that could
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 11:23 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple
Diego Novillo wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andrew MacLeod
>wrote:
>
>> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change
>the
>> name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that
>better.
>
>As much as I hate to paint name sheds: gimple-val.[ch].
On 11/14/2013 11:23 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple expression.
very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can ch
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change the
> name back to gimple-decl.[ch] or some such thing if you like that better.
As much as I hate to paint name sheds: gimple-val.[ch].
Diego.
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > I think if following through with the whole plan there would (and
> > should) be nothing remaining that could be called a gimple expression.
>
> very possibly, i just haven't gotten to those parts yet. I can change
> the name back to gimple-de
On 11/14/2013 10:57 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
That's why I think talking about a gimple expression as if they were
somehow some stand-alone concept is fairly confusing, and introducing it
now as if it would somewhen exist would lead to going down so
Hi,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > That's why I think talking about a gimple expression as if they were
> > somehow some stand-alone concept is fairly confusing, and introducing it
> > now as if it would somewhen exist would lead to going down some inferior
> > design paths.
>
>
On 11/14/2013 10:37 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
related to or require a statemen
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
>>> There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
>>> related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming th
On 11/14/2013 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming the home for
just 0gimple statements. There are 3 (for the moment) major class
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
> Put another way: what do you envision that gimple expressions would be.
> For example what would you propose we could do with them?
The only expressions I have in mind are memory references and
aggregates, which can get pretty convoluted.
Hi,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> There needs to be a place which has gimple componentry that is not
> related to or require a statement. gimple.h is becoming the home for
> just 0gimple statements. There are 3 (for the moment) major classes of
> things that are in statements
On 11/13/2013 04:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h
Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK?
* c-family/c-omp.c: Include gimple-expr.h instead of g
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h
>
> Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK?
* c-family/c-omp.c: Include gimple-expr.h instead of gimple.h.
can you explain why gimple-expr.h i
This one covers the front end files which included gimple.h
Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with no new regressions. OK?
Andrew
* ada/gcc-interface/trans.c: Include gimplify.h.
* c/c-typeck.c: Include gimplify.h.
* c-family/c-common.c: Include gimplify.h.
* c-family/c-gimplify.c:
19 matches
Mail list logo
