* Mark Mitchell:
> 1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free software
> jobs, or not purely free software jobs? How pure is pure? Does "Port
> GCC to proprietary OS" count as free or not?
And: Does porting GCC to a new processor, to run on a free operating
system, without e
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 08:47:26PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
> What is the procedure for updating my public key
> on gcc.gnu.org? Note, I long ago forgot the
> passwd (if I even had one) for my account, so
> using scp is out of the question because I no longer
> have ssh access (for some reason)
I want to write a pass to walk the gimple tree and add some intrumentation
code. I read the chapter 9 of "GCC Internals" document, and it seems not to
describe the Macros to do so.
Can I get some information about this? Specifically, if someone can show me
which .h file I should look at to fin
What is the procedure for updating my public key
on gcc.gnu.org? Note, I long ago forgot the
passwd (if I even had one) for my account, so
using scp is out of the question because I no longer
have ssh access (for some reason).
To make a long story short, my hard drive decided to
scramble itself
Hello
I've subscribed to the gcc mailing list from my work account
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) but none of my posts appear on the mailing
list... The mail doesn't get bounced back so I assume it's getting
delivered, but nonetheless my posts don't show up on the list... Is
there someone who can give
[note subject change, since I suspect it's not v850-specific]
There are 18 target directories that define DWARF2_DEBUGGING_INFO (not
counting all those that get it from elfos.h et al) but only 8 that
define DWARF2_UNWIND_INFO (both from just a simple grep).
> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 16:41:25 -0400
On Apr 10, 2006, at 5:23 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Mike Stump wrote:
3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to tho
DJ Delorie wrote:
>> Here, if Company A and Company B both want to recruit, but A adheres
>> to the policy while B does not, A loses.
>
> I think that's a compelling reason to keep it at "no ads".
It seems like we're getting consensus around that approach, despite the
initial sentiment in the ot
Again, the GCC3 distribution has a port of the IP2K microcontroller.
It has a hardware call stack, but the data stack is implemented
entirely in software.
You will have to dedicate a register to act as the data-stack
pointer. I suppose if you limit yourself to
writing functions with NO sta
Dear mailing list,
is there something wrong with the following code?
--
basic_block my_basic_block;
basic_block dup_basic_block;
FOR_EACH_BB(my_basic_block)
{
dup_basic_block = duplicate_block(bb, NULL);
}
--
I get an ICE in get_indirect_ref_operands, with the backtrace:
--
#0 0x000
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/06 17:35, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Thus, I vote with Jeff.
>
Likewise. Companies ought to send job ads to comp.compilers or use the
FSF listing service.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEOtFpUTa2oAUaiwQRAj
> Here, if Company A and Company B both want to recruit, but A adheres
> to the policy while B does not, A loses.
I think that's a compelling reason to keep it at "no ads". We've got
enough stress just developing gcc; we don't need the extra stress of
corporate pressure to act against our fellow
Mike Stump wrote:
>> 3. How do we enforce any of these rules?
>
> Shame on those that violate them.
I think we need to do better than that.
If there's no viable enforcement mechanism, then people following the
policy are at a disadvantage to those who are not. Traditional spam and
things bette
On Apr 10, 2006, at 1:29 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
1. What do we do if people do advertise jobs that are not free
software
jobs
Ask them not to, ultimately the same thing we do with spammers. :-)
or not purely free software jobs?
If on the wiki, edit out all the parts that aren't and tell
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I'd rather not open the door to job postings, even for GCC
I see myself as a consumer of this list and not a producer so it is
hard to see myself as having a "vote". But if I do,
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 13:29 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> You and Mike have suggested that recruiting GCC developers is a
> reasonable use of the list. Before we go to the SC, asking for approval
> to change the policy, we should address some other issues:
>
> 1. What do we do if people do advert
Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm inclined to think that it serves gcc if the list can be used to
> recruit people to work on gcc for pay. Of course an FSF list cannot
> sanction offers for proprietary software development, and I wouldn't want
> to see offers for unrelated software work.
You and Mike have s
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:48:55AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
> GCC lists...
>
> Recently, there has your message, and Benjamin Kosnik's message about
> internships -- so we need to either reconfirm the earlier policy, or
Hi Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses left.
It's happening in the mem-ssa branch. But switching fr
On Apr 10, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Thoughts?
We don't want to open the flood gates to random recruiters for random
software, however, I never saw the harm in solicitations from gcc
contributors for people to work on gcc. If we were to relax the
current policy, we can have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/06 15:23, Kazu Hirata wrote:
> Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
> be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
> working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful
On Apr 10, 2006, at 3:23 PM, Kazu Hirata wrote:
Hi Daniel and Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses lef
Hi Daniel and Diego,
Several months ago, you mentioned that the alias analysis in gcc would
be overhauled. Has this happened yet? If not, I am thinking about
working on alias.c and tree-ssa-alias.c as there are only a handful of
VARRAY uses left.
Thanks,
Kazu Hirata
On Apr 9, 2006, at 3:39 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Just as a reminder, even though the Microchip code is covered by
the GPL, code based on it won't be acceptable for inclusion into
FSF GCC unless you can get Microchip to sign a copyright
assignment, which seems unlikely.
Would seem to
Rick Edwards wrote:
> We are a strong and growing company working in some very advanced DSP
> silicon.
We have (had) a policy against these kinds of recruiting messages on the
GCC lists. Instead, it was suggested that people work through the FSF's
job-listing service. Unfortunately, I can't fin
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Frank Riese wrote:
>
> Most of the instructions of the target machine only support registers as
> operands. E.g., a store to a memory location (STO) must always take a
> register containing the address of the memory location and another register
> with
Hi!
Im writing a backend for GCC 4.0-2 for a simple machine with a rather limited
instruction set. With the kind help of Ian Lance Taylor I was already able to
solve a few big problems I had earlier. Now I am stuck on another problem
that IMHO concerns reloading.
Most of the instructions of t
Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
Happy days.. That wasn't obvious to me. I'll check out the details later.
In fact many RISC chips have no specific hardware support for
a stack (MIPS is another example of such an architecture).
Happy days.. That wasn't obvious to me. I'll check out the details later.
Thanks.
Colm
The PowerPC (look in config/rs6000) has no stack.
All GCC needs is that you define a register to be the stack pointer
(STACK_POINTER_REGNUM) and this register doesn't have to be a base register
(see "Addre
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 07:54:24AM +, Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
> I'm hoping that there is an existing backend architecture where there is no
> stack, so that I can have a peep to see how the code fakes stack support,
> but so far, all the obvious candidates (the microcontrollers) seem to have
Ok I was wrong. Maybe you could contact John Elliott
([EMAIL PROTECTED]), because I 'm not an English native speaker
and I don't understand all the juridic terms. I also think that the
goodness of the question often makes the goodness of the answer.
Best regards,
Francois Poulain
Le dimanche 09
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 02:45:04PM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> Tach auch!
>
> Am Fr, den 31 März 2006, schrieb Alan Modra:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 12:56:13AM +0200, Dieter Schuster wrote:
> > > > If I try to compile qem
Does anyone have any ideas about what gcc support is like for targets with
no data stack? The 14 bit cores (16F) mostly have a 2-8 level hardware
stack, which is not part of the program or data memory, and is not
addressable. There is no data stack.
I'm hoping that there is an existing backe
33 matches
Mail list logo
