gcc-6-20160804 is now available

Snapshot gcc-6-20160804 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20160804/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 22:01, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a >> criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help >> and how to improve the situation. For sure, everybody is doing the >> best that

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > Another question is how to help existing maintainers such that they > are more motivated to review patches. Is it a lack of time? lack of > Interest in the project? do patches simply fall through the cracks? is > it a dead-lock of people waiting for each other to comme

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a > criticism of people. The question is how to get more people to help > and how to improve the situation. For sure, everybody is doing the > best that they can with the time that they have. You complaine

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:34, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: >> Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: >> >>> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, >> >> Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those? > > I don't see

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 4 August 2016 at 21:27, DJ Delorie wrote: > Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > >> none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, > > Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those? I don't see how that helps. Neither my message nor Thomas's is a criticism of

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

Manuel Lpez-Ibñez writes: > none? for libiberty, no regular maintainer for build machinery, Perhaps this is a sign that I should step down as maintainers for those?

Re: [GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to te

On 04/08/16 15:49, Thomas Schwinge wrote: I suppose, if I weren't paid for paid for this, I would have run away long ago, and would have looked for another project to contribute to. :-( You are a *paid* developer for one of the most active companies in the GCC community. Imagine how it feels f

[GCC Steering Committee attention] [PING] [PING] [PING] libgomp: In OpenACC testing, cycle though $offload_targets, and by default only build for the offload target that we're actually going to test

Hi! Ping. It has now been more than three months (!) that I first submitted this, without receiving any meaningful review. (Apart from one initial "deprecative" comment by Jakub, which I then repeatedly detailed on, without receiving any further response.)

Re: [gimplefe] "Unknown tree: c_maybe_const_expr" error while parsing conditional expression

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Prasad Ghangal wrote: > On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition (parser) in >>> c_parser_gimple_if_stmt by c_parser_gimple_paren_c

Re: [gimplefe] "Unknown tree: c_maybe_const_expr" error while parsing conditional expression

On 2 August 2016 at 14:29, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Prasad Ghangal > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to replace c_parser_paren_condition (parser) in >> c_parser_gimple_if_stmt by c_parser_gimple_paren_condition (parser) as >> described in the patch >> >> I am tryin

Re: gcc-4.9-20160803 is now available

On Thu, 4 Aug 2016, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: > > Snapshot gcc-4.9-20160803 is now available on > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20160803/ > > and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. > > Is it possible you

Re: gcc-4.9-20160803 is now available

On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, gccad...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: > Snapshot gcc-4.9-20160803 is now available on > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.9-20160803/ > and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. Is it possible you missed installing the updated maintainer-scripts/cron