Re: Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

2017-03-12 Thread Palmer Dabbelt
On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 04:27:26 PDT (-0700), ger...@pfeifer.com wrote: > I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi > need a little lover and care. It would be great could you have > a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release. I looked at our stuff (RISC-V) and there'

Diagnostics that should not be translated

2017-03-12 Thread Roland Illig
Hi, the gcc.pot file currently contains more than 12000 messages to be translated, which is a very high number. Many of these messages are diagnostics, and they can be categorized as follows: * errors in user programs, reported via error () * additional info for internal errors, reported via erro

PATCH for Re: Release notes for GCC 7?

2017-03-12 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > We've been creating those lazily over the last decade. We can change > that, an entry for releasing.html is appreciated then so we don't forget. And here we go, in time for the release of GCC 7 / branching of GCC 8. (Except, this time I went ahead an

gcc-7-20170312 is now available

2017-03-12 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-7-20170312 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20170312/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision

Re: November 2016 GNU Toolchain Update

2017-03-12 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Nick Clifton wrote: > That's all for now. Hopefully the next update will be a bit sooner in > arriving. Thanks for that update, Nick. Surely interesting reading. Are you planning another update for March or so? ;-) On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Joseph Myers wrote: > Many of the GCC

Re: terminology: zero character vs. null character

2017-03-12 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: >> I am currently translating GCC into German. During that, I noticed that >> in some places the term "zero character" means '\0'. The official term >> though is "null character", as per the C standard. > I don't see anything explicit here: https://gc

Design question LWG 2861: basic_string should require that charT match traits::char_type

2017-03-12 Thread Daniel Krügler
I'm now working on http://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/lwg-defects.html#2861 The new wording state is now equivalent to basic_string_view, whose current implementation doesn't bother verifying the requirement, so this code (which as UB) currently compiles just fine: #include #include struct MyTrai

Target maintainers: doc/install.texi love and care

2017-03-12 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
I noticed that the target-specific sections in doc/install.texi need a little lover and care. It would be great could you have a look and streamline/update before the GCC 7 release. Thanks! Also, I'm offering help around one particular aspect I noticed: References to dependencies on really, re