Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:06:17PM CET:
> On 02/20/2011 10:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Thanks. Eric, would you mind if I went ahead with this patch?
>
> Sorry for my long silence on the matter.
No worries.
> > I'm fully aware that I have high review latency to
On 02/20/2011 10:35 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello,
>
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:35:31PM CET:
>> On 02/13/2011 09:04 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> Any reasons against pushing this once a test with gccgo installed
>>> passes as well?
>>
>> The patch looks good to me; as y
Hello,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 09:35:31PM CET:
> On 02/13/2011 09:04 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Any reasons against pushing this once a test with gccgo installed
> > passes as well?
>
> The patch looks good to me; as you say, it shouldn't break
> existing uses. I'd like t
On 02/13/2011 09:04 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Any reasons against pushing this once a test with gccgo installed
> passes as well?
The patch looks good to me; as you say, it shouldn't break
existing uses. I'd like to also hear Eric's opinion on this.
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 08:15:29AM CET:
> * Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:54PM CET:
> > On 11/03/2010 11:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > >> It otherwise seems low-danger to me, but
> > >> I wouldn't want to move forward on the Libtool sister patch withou
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:54PM CET:
> On 11/03/2010 11:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> It otherwise seems low-danger to me, but
> >> I wouldn't want to move forward on the Libtool sister patch without this
> >> one cleared.
> >
> > I'm at the point with my gcc patches w
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 06:42:54PM CET:
> Sorry, I've been swamped by some other tasks lately, and have not looked
> at this patch yet. I also need to make good on my promise to split off
> a stable branch and 2.68.1 release, while applying feature patches like
> Go support onto
On 11/03/10 10:42, Eric Blake wrote:
> Personally, I'd like GOC mnemonic of Go-compiler (to match FC for
> Fortran-compiler, or CC for C compiler).
I also like "GOC". (Even though it rhymes with "gawk". :-)
On 11/03/2010 11:38 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> That said, I'm not wedded to GCCGO, and if y'all think it would be
>>> better to use GOC or GOCC, I'm fine with making the change. It's true
>>> that it would be possible to write a driver program for 6g/8g which make
>>> them act more like gccgo
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> Hello Eric, Ian,
>
> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:06:07PM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>>
>> >> +...@defmac AC_PROG_GO (@ovar{compiler-search-list})
>> >> +Find the Go compiler to use. Check whether the environment variable
>> >> +...@code{gc
Hello Eric, Ian,
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:06:07PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues writes:
>
> >> +...@defmac AC_PROG_GO (@ovar{compiler-search-list})
> >> +Find the Go compiler to use. Check whether the environment variable
> >> +...@code{gccgo} is set; if so, then set output
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> Did you do the menu rebuilding automatically? If yes, how?
I did rebuild the menus automatically. I did it by typing ^C ^U ^A in
emacs texinfo mode.
>> +...@defmac AC_PROG_GO (@ovar{compiler-search-list})
>> +Find the Go compiler to use. Check whether the environme
Hi Ian,
* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 09:37:40PM CEST:
> This patch adds support for the Go programming language to autoconf.
> The Go programming language is described at http://golang.org/ .
>
> This is fairly basic support. It only works with gccgo, the Go frontend
> to gcc
This patch adds support for the Go programming language to autoconf.
The Go programming language is described at http://golang.org/ .
This is fairly basic support. It only works with gccgo, the Go frontend
to gcc. It has no special features. However, it is enough to write
AC_PROG_GO and have th
14 matches
Mail list logo
