We have a comment saying to replace the simple binary_semaphore type
with std::binary_semaphore, which has been done. However, that isn't
defined on all targets. So keep the simple one here that just implements
the parts of the API needed by , and remove the comment
suggesting it should be replaced
On Mon, May 10, 2021, 9:52 AM abebeos
wrote:
> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
>
> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all starts here, at gcc.
>
What do you think that the GCC project has
Hi!
On Sat, May 08, 2021 at 04:19:34PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> This patch is to move rs6000_vect_nonmem (target cost_data
> related information) into target cost_data struct.
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_vect_nonmem): Renamed to
> vect_nonmem and moved into...
> (struct
Hi!
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 12:19:52PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> PowerPC64 ELFv2 dual entry point functions have a couple of problems
> with -fpatchable-function-entry. One is that the nops added after the
> global entry land in the global entry code which is constrained to be
> a power of two n
(unable to comment to this without loosing my temper. So... no comment)
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 05:49, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 8:33 AM abebeos
> wrote:
> >
> > To me this sounds quite like an "disorganized mess, where bullies,
> abusers and even IT-fascists can thrive".
On Mon, 10 May 2021 at 23:32, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021, 9:52 AM abebeos
> wrote:
>
>> Again, just heavily fascinating to see how you ignore the overall essence
>> of this, which is of course directly related to gcc.
>>
>> (bountysource is just a secondary disaster, it all s
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:00:42PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> There are various non-IBM CPUs with isel as well, so it is easiest if we
> just don't consider that flag here (it is not needed).
>
> 2021-04-20 Segher Boessenkool
>
> PR target/100108
> * config/rs6000/rs6000.c
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:45 PM abebeos wrote:
>
> The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project should
> have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward rigged the
> voting process (aborted the vote before end of the voting period).
>
> The fact that
On 5/10/2021 3:45 PM, abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote:
I've described this in my message here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
The summary is possibly
* I identified via necessary week-long work a (shelved) patch as valid for
(re)use.
* The gcc project(members) s
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 01:35, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:45 PM abebeos
> wrote:
> >
> > The bounty was filed/advertised by the gcc project, so the gcc project
> should have intervened immediately at the point where an anonymous coward
> rigged the voting process (aborted
On Tue, 11 May 2021 at 01:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>
> On 5/10/2021 3:45 PM, abebeos via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >
> > I've described this in my message here:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-May/569913.html
> >
> > The summary is possibly
> > * I identified via necessary week-long
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 4:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 6:59 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 3:29 PM H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:39 AM Richard Sandiford
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard Biener via Gcc-patches writes:
>
On 4/23/21 1:37 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 4/23/21 12:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
True, the question is on how much detail we have to pay attention to.
Agree with that.
For us of course the build-id solution works fine. And hopefully the
days of PCH are counted...
Yes.
I have a tentativ
101 - 113 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
