On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> >
> > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such change
> > for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC 11.
> >
>
> That is how I was
Paul Koning via Gcc writes:
>> On Jun 4, 2021, at 2:02 PM, Andreas Krebbel via Gcc wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wonder if we could replace the register asm construct for
>> inline assemblies with something a bit nicer and more obvious.
>> E.g. turning this (real world example from IBM Z kernel code
On Sun, 2021-06-06 at 17:41 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> How can I figure out why the compiler decides, while compiling
> foo.cxx, that MyClass is virtual and needs a vtable when as far as I
> can tell it's not (if I use nm on MyClass.o I see no hints of vtable
> etc.)
Err... I think this might have
Hi Richard,
On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such
> change
> > > for t
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 6:11 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would
On 6/4/21 9:55 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
On 13.05.21 13:45, Martin Liška wrote:
On 4/1/21 3:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
That said, I'm asking the GCC community for a green light before I
invest
more time on it?
So far, I've received just a small feedback about the transition. In
most cas
On 6/4/21 4:24 PM, Koning, Paul wrote:
On Jun 4, 2021, at 3:55 AM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hello,
On 13.05.21 13:45, Martin Liška wrote:
On 4/1/21 3:30 PM, Martin Liška wrote:
That said, I'm asking the GCC community for a green light before I
invest
more time on it?
So far, I've received ju
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:10 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would
Hi David,
On June 7, 2021 1:26:52 PM UTC, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > It's a breaking change, after all.
>
> It's not a new or different license (unlike GPLv2->GPLv3). It's not
> reverting the existing copyrights and assignments.
For sure, but it IS a different legal framework anyway.
Before
On 07.06.21 15:28, Martin Liška wrote:
* I note that we write before the argument index, that those are
without -/-- prefix
but that's not true. Something to fix after the conversation.
Can you please show me a few examples of it?
* https://splichal.eu/scripts/sphinx/gfortran/_build/html
> On Jun 6, 2021, at 5:41 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> I have a class which is NOT, as far as I can see, polymorphic.
>
> It doesn't inherit from any other class and none of its methods are
> declared virtual. The class implementation and all its callers all
> compile just fine.
>
> Is there s
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 02:17:55PM +, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Anyway, to most people it's just a matter of risk assesment.
>
> GCC will now come with a new legal risk that was absemt before, thus
> it should be handled properly, with a proper notice and incapaulated
> in a new major version.
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:48:06 +0200 Richard Biener wrote:
> > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the
> > development branch already?
>
> I'm not aware of any anywhere yet.
A very good news!
(but should be confirmed by the Steering Committee)
This means that this issue is stil
Hi Jakub,
On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for
> decades, just look at the source.
>
> libffi has various copyright holders
> include/hsa* has AMD as copyright holder
> gcc/go/gofrontend and libgo has The Go A
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> On June 7, 2021 2:44:56 PM UTC, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. GCC codebase doesn't have a single copyright holder for
> > decades, just look at the source.
> >
> > libffi has various copyright holders
> > include/hsa* has AMD as cop
On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 11:45:49AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The copyright troll risk is much, much lower for GCC than for Linux.
> First, because GPL3 specifically addresses the over-strict automatic
> termination rules in GPL2 that copyright trolls leverage. And also because
> there are many
On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> wrote:
>
> > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > to FSF will not really change anything significant.
> >
> > I'm afraid you are being a bit naive here.
>
Hello,
You have received a newsletter from EDAS-SIBA.
However, your email software can't display HTML emails. You can view the
newsletter by clicking here:
https://click.mlsend.com/link/c/YT0xNzAzMDM1MzE3ODYwMTc3NTkxJmM9dDJvNCZlPTEwMTg1NjcmYj02MTg3MzExOTcmZD11NWo3cDB1._kKF6V2O5dcALeE05yep2X-7my
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
>
Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will stop
contributing unless the change is made.
>
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 12:12 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
>
> On June 7, 2021 3:45:49 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 11:23 AM Giacomo Tesio
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > So, a few extra copyright holders under DCO instead of assignment
> > > > to FSF will not really change anythin
Hi NightStrike,
On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> >
>
> Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 07:36 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi NightStrike,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >
> > > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > > I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
> > >
> >
Hi Jason,
On June 7, 2021 5:24:12 PM UTC, Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> Why would someone bother to hassle a redistributor who can just say
> "nonsense, we're in compliance, the corresponding source is at this
> URL"?
Usually it's a matter of money AND details.
> What return on their time can they r
I believe that was recently fixed on trunk by
fb6b24c66ea5a2ccbf6fb9f299c20a69f962ac9b
On 6/3/21 4:59 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
Hi!
I'm currently building GCC from git on various Debian targets to help with the
gccrs development effort a bit. On 32-bit PowerPC, I have run into a pro
I doubled checked and that commit was for a different 32 bit issue.
What are you using for your build compiler? binutils?
On 6/7/21 2:19 PM, William Seurer via Gcc wrote:
I believe that was recently fixed on trunk by
fb6b24c66ea5a2ccbf6fb9f299c20a69f962ac9b
On 6/3/21 4:59 AM, John Paul Adria
On Mon, 7 Jun 2021 15:30:22 +0200
Martin Liška wrote:
> Anyway, this is resolved as I use more appropriate directive:
> https://splichal.eu/scripts/sphinx/gfortran/_build/html/intrinsic-procedures/access-checks-file-access-modes.html
ISTM there's a typo s/Tailing/Trailing/ in gcc/fortran/intrins
26 matches
Mail list logo
