Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated
Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 8:31 PM Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 4/20/21 5:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 4/20/21 4:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >> On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Se
t; > On 2021-04-20 15:25, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshot
akub Jelinek via Gcc
> wrote:
>
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revi
GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
r11-8265-g246abba01f302eb453475b650ba839ec905be76d.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the
On 4/20/21 5:03 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 4:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across p
://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
r11-8265-g246abba01f302eb453475b650ba839ec905be76d.
I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-linux and i686
rg/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
> r11-8265-g246abba01f302eb453475b650ba839ec905be76d.
>
> I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release can
On 2021-04-20 15:25, David Edelsohn via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and
On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp
On 4/20/21 4:15 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
Peter Bergner via Gcc wrote:
On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
/tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2570: Error: unsupported r
> On 21/04/2021 00:02 Peter Bergner wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
> >> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
> >> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
> >> /tmp/
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:43 PM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
>
> and shortly its mirrors.
On 4/20/21 2:36 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map =
On 4/20/21 4:20 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s: Assembler messages:
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2566: Error: unsupported relocation against r13
>> /tmp/cc8zG8DV.s:2570: Error: unsupported relocation against r14
[s
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 03:27:08PM -0500, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
>
> On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> > The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
> &g
On Apr 20 2021, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
> On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>> The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/1
On 4/20/21 2:13 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
But I see cras
On 4/20/21 10:24 AM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
>
> static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
>
> I initialize the map like so:
>
> map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
>
> But I see crashes when accessing the map a
I have a static hash_map object that needs to persist across passes:
static GTY(()) hash_map *map;
I initialize the map like so:
map = hash_map::create_ggc (4);
But I see crashes when accessing the map after adding and removing
some number of entries in a few passes. The crashes are due t
Status
==
The trunk has branched for the GCC 11 release and is now open
again for general development, stage 1. Please consider not
disrupting it too much during the RC phase of GCC 11 so it
is possible to test important fixes for 11.1 on it.
Quality Data
Priority #
Status
==
We have reached zero P1 regressions today and releases/gcc-11 branch has
been created; GCC 11.1-rc1 has been built and announced a few moments ago.
The branch is now frozen for blocking regressions and documentation
fixes only, all changes to the branch require a RM approval now.
I
The first release candidate for GCC 11.1 is available from
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420/
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/11.1.0-RC-20210420
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from git revision
r11-8265-g246abba01f302eb453475b650ba839ec905be76d.
I
> That would surely only be relevant if people wanted to use their
> telephones to compile code?
That's not completely clear. It would certainly be true if the compiler
were included on the phone, whether or not the compiler was actually used.
But I was more addressing the general comment that
On 20/04/2021 16:15, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
>> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
>> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
>> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
>
> But note that so
> Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
> working on GCC because they made a company decision to use clang instead.
> That decision was made for technical reasons, not licensing reasons.
But note that some cellphone manufacturers (e.g, Samsung) have taken
steps
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021, 12:54 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>
> Check the git logs, Google employees are minor contributors these
> days. The GPLv3 scared Google away from GCC years ago.
>
Just for the record, Google has no problem with the GPLv3. Google stopped
working on GCC because they ma
On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:11 AM, Gabriel Paubert
mailto:paub...@iram.es>> wrote:
(lldb) di -s 0x000103d6 -c 10
libgambit.dylib`___SCMOBJ_to_NONNULLSTRING:
0x103d6 <+1504>: jl 0x103d60026 ; <+1542> at
c_intf.c:3282:9
0x103d60002 <+1506>: orb%al, 0x31(%rbp)
0
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 9:22 AM, David Starner via Gcc wrote:
>
> Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>> ...
>> Please, do not create a hostile environment for indipendent contributors.
>
> What do you mean by independent? If you're independently wealthy and
> don't need to work, you can avoid this. If you're
Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> And while this is IBM, the other US corporations with affiliations in
the Steering Committee are no better:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-April/235777.html
> I can understand that some of you consider working for such corporations "a
> joy".
> But for the rest of u
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:20:06PM +, Lucier, Bradley J via Gcc wrote:
> I’m seeing an “Illegal Instruction” fault and don’t quite know how to
> generate a proper bug report yet.
>
> This is the compiler:
>
> [Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
> Using built-in spe
On 4/20/21 7:42 AM, Richard Kenner via Gcc wrote:
Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of
Hi David,
I'm amused to see how far you can go to rationalize such a clear statement:
"You are an IBM employee 100% of the time."
This is the kind of control these companies think they deserve over their
employees.
And when they refuse to obey, they are fired, like Timnit Gebru.
To me, the
> Troubling indeed, but this might just be an overzealous manager.
> IBM, like other corporations, has made significant technical
> contributions to GCC over the years, for example the scheduler and
> the vectorizer, and thus has assigned the copyright of these
> contributions to the FSF.
Yes, as
> You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
For those who aren't aware of it, this has been IBM's position for
many decades. It's not a new position. But they are unique in the
extremeness of their position on this, so generalizing this would be a
mistake.
Lucier, Bradley J via Gcc wrote:
I’m seeing an “Illegal Instruction” fault and don’t quite know how to
generate a proper bug report yet.
This is the compiler:
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc
COLLE
I’m seeing an “Illegal Instruction” fault and don’t quite know how to generate
a proper bug report yet.
This is the compiler:
[Bradleys-Mac-mini:~] lucier% /usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=/usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/bin/gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/local/gcc-10.3.0/l
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:21, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is
> highly problematic,
> > I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> > message over Linux MAINTAINERS
You got to understand what an employee 100% of the time means.
It means to be 100% Employer-Owned - It is the Culture of Ownership.
But the tyrannical double standard do-gooders and the continued pretense
that they're trying to help people in this society (e.g. women,
minorities, free software, et
On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi GCC developers,
>
> just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is highly
> problematic,
> I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> message over Linux MAINTAINERS
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/
Obviously the dude was not Eric Raymond, because he would have sent the
IBM Fuckhead an appropriate reply. These are the developers at IBM,
who after being watched by the IBM Panopticon, they obey!
Now repeat after me,
"Whenever I hear the voice say,
'Now, listen to me, ' I will obey."
"When I he
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 04:47, Frosku wrote:
>
> On Mon Apr 19, 2021 at 4:06 PM BST, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> > Google doesn't pay anybody to work on GCC all day. You know nothing
> > about
> > GCC or the "problems" you're complaining about. Your input to this
> > conversation is not constructive.
>
> Here the relevant excerpt (but please go chech the quotation):
>
> "As an IBM employee, you are not allowed to use your gmail account to work
> in any way on VNIC. You are not allowed to use your personal email account
> as a "hobby". You are an IBM employee 100% of the time.
> Please remove you
46 matches
Mail list logo
