On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 5:59 PM Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2013-01-24T10:14:58-0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > [...] the patch [...] committed [...]
>
> This did clean up some things:
>
> > --- a/gcc/ggc-internal.h
> > +++ b/gcc/ggc-internal.h
> > @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ extern struct ggc_pch_
Hi!
On 2013-01-24T10:14:58-0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> [...] the patch [...] committed [...]
This did clean up some things:
> --- a/gcc/ggc-internal.h
> +++ b/gcc/ggc-internal.h
> @@ -55,8 +55,7 @@ extern struct ggc_pch_data *init_ggc_pch (void);
> of an object. Update the ggc_pch_data st
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:31:16PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >That's true. Perhaps a warning message stating that --with-gc is now
> >ignored? Or would you prefer a straight out error?
>
> I don't think we ever cared for this.
>
> Thus, the patch is ok if no other rm objects within a day.
Diego Novillo wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Richard Earnshaw
>wrote:
>
>> Won't this mean that use of the configure option is now silently
>ignored,
>> rather than generating an error? Existing users of the option might
>be
>> slightly confused by that.
>
>That's true. Perhaps a war
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Won't this mean that use of the configure option is now silently ignored,
> rather than generating an error? Existing users of the option might be
> slightly confused by that.
That's true. Perhaps a warning message stating that --with-
Diego -
> I will need a global reviewer to approve the patch. Laurynas,
> could you take a look to make sure I'm not forgetting to remove
> anything?
Cannot find anything.
> * gengtype.c (write_enum_defn): Remove. Update all users.
> (write_Types_process_field): Remove generati
On 22/01/13 14:33, Diego Novillo wrote:
This patch removes the GC zone allocator. It is not used and it
produces several regressions in the testsuite. Furthermore, it
complicates things for the plan to implement manual GC markers
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gc-alternatives#Do_GC_mar