On 06.02.25 00:36, Robert Dubner wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Matthias Klose
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 04:26
To: Joseph Myers
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; James K. Lowden
Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, in 8 notes + toplevel patch
On 17.12.24 00:58, Joseph Myers wrote
> -Original Message-
> From: Matthias Klose
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 04:26
> To: Joseph Myers
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; James K. Lowden
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, in 8 notes + toplevel patch
>
> On 17.12.24 00:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
[Well, that was interesting. Some combination of fat fingers crashed
my mail client and sent the incomplete message. Continued below]
From: "James K. Lowden"
To: Matthias Klose
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 04:25:23 -0500
Subject: Re: The COBOL front end,
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 10:24:23 +0100
Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 14.12.24 15:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian.
> > Found some issues:
>
> tried to build libgcobol on more architectures, please find the
> attached patch to disable building
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 18:34:03 -0500
David Malcolm wrote:
> You may want to apply this trivial fix to placate older C++ compilers:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cobol/genapi.cc b/gcc/cobol/genapi.cc
> index c9f146df41f..af4efcecebb 100644
> --- a/gcc/cobol/genapi.cc
> +++ b/gcc/cobol/genapi.cc
> @@ -15077,
"James K. Lowden" writes:
> On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:56:36 -0500
> "James K. Lowden" wrote:
>
>> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
>> document the COBOL front end.
> [...]
> * does not build on Darwin/macOS [Iain]
> [...]
> - 32-bit architectures are not a consid
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> I think the issue that raised the most concern is the one I think is
> most important: diagnostics. It was unclear -- still is, to me --
> whether the COBOL front end must or should use the gcc diagnostic
> framework. (In my defense, the system goes u
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> * Please make sure to do all regeneration with *unmodified* versions
> [Joseph]
> - I don't understand.
You appeared to have regenerated a configure script built with a version
of autoconf from a GNU/Linux distribution that patched autoconf to add
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 12:56:36 -0500
"James K. Lowden" wrote:
> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
> document the COBOL front end.
Below is a list of issues with the COBOL front end, listed in
order of priority, most important first. Each is tagged with who
raised
On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 11:32 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:48:52 + (UTC)
> Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > However, if introducing a Bison dependency, it needs to be
> > documented
> > (being specific about version requirements) in install.texi.
>
> Under "Tools/packages n
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:48:52 + (UTC)
> Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > However, if introducing a Bison dependency, it needs to be documented
> > (being specific about version requirements) in install.texi.
>
> Under "Tools/packages necessary for buil
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:48:52 + (UTC)
Joseph Myers wrote:
> However, if introducing a Bison dependency, it needs to be documented
> (being specific about version requirements) in install.texi.
Under "Tools/packages necessary for building GCC", in Prequisites,
yes?
In gcc/cobol/parse,y, we
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 10:25:48AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 17.12.24 00:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > > On 14.12.24 15:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > > I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian. Found
> > > > some
> >
On 17.12.24 00:58, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.12.24 15:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian. Found some
issues:
tried to build libgcobol on more architectures, please find the attached patch
to disa
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 14.12.24 15:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian. Found some
> > issues:
>
> tried to build libgcobol on more architectures, please find the attached patch
> to disable building libgcobol on so
On Sat, 14 Dec 2024, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> 1) to introduce new build dependencies on:
> - bison (we normally commit generated files to the repo not expect the
> end-user
>to need bison installed).
> - a version of gm4 that recognises —gnu
We don't commit bison-generated files. (We don't
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> A word about C style, always a lively topic. For any files already
> present in gcc, the existing style was followed, and any variation from
> it is unintentional. Files related to the parser use K&R style. The
> GENERIC interface and runtime librar
On 14.12.24 15:38, Matthias Klose wrote:
I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian. Found
some issues:
tried to build libgcobol on more architectures, please find the attached
patch to disable building libgcobol on some architectures.
how should patches and build failure
On Sat, 2024-12-14 at 18:34 -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2024-12-14 at 10:11 +, Sam James wrote:
> > David Malcolm writes:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your kind consideration of our work.
> > >
> >
On Sat, 2024-12-14 at 10:11 +, Sam James wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
[...]
> > >
> > > Thank you for your kind consideration of our work.
> >
> > Please forgive me if you've already said this elsewhere, but is
> > this
> >
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 8:09 AM Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 14 Dec 2024, at 11:56, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 14 Dec 2024, at 10:11, Sam James wrote:
> >>
> >> David Malcolm writes:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The following 8 patch
I tried to use the patches to build binary packages for Debian. Found
some issues:
gcc/cobol:
- the config-lang.in is provided in both patch 04 and patch 08.
- the installation path for the gcobc script is missing the gcc/
subdir. Does it make sense to ship the script without the udf
files
> Am 14.12.2024 um 14:09 schrieb Iain Sandoe :
>
>
>
>>> On 14 Dec 2024, at 11:56, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 14 Dec 2024, at 10:11, Sam James wrote:
>>>
>>> David Malcolm writes:
>>>
On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The following 8 pat
> On 14 Dec 2024, at 11:56, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 14 Dec 2024, at 10:11, Sam James wrote:
>>
>> David Malcolm writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
document the COBOL
> On 14 Dec 2024, at 10:11, Sam James wrote:
>
> David Malcolm writes:
>
>> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
>>> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
>>> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>>>
>>> gcc/
David Malcolm writes:
> On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
>> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
>> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>>
>> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
>> libgcobol/ChangeLog
>>
>> The message
"James K. Lowden" writes:
> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>
> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
> libgcobol/ChangeLog
>
> The messages are grouped by files in a more or less logical order,
> but gro
"James K. Lowden" writes:
> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>
> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
> libgcobol/ChangeLog
>
> The messages are grouped by files in a more or less logical order,
> but gro
On Thu, 2024-12-12 at 12:56 -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
> document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
>
> gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
> libgcobol/ChangeLog
>
> The messages are grouped by files in a more
The following 8 patches constitute the 80 files needed to build and
document the COBOL front end. They assume that following exist:
gcc/cobol/ChangeLog
libgcobol/ChangeLog
The messages are grouped by files in a more or less logical order,
but groups are somewhat arbitrary. The primary c
30 matches
Mail list logo
