RE: GCC 13 release date

[AMD Official Use Only - General] Thanks Sam. This is clear and helpful. Regards, Mayank -Original Message- From: Sam James Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2023 11:38 AM To: Vaish, Mayank Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 13 release date "Vaish, Mayank" writes: > [AMD Official Use

Re: GCC 13 release date

"Vaish, Mayank" writes: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > Hi Mayank, > Thanks Sam for your prompt response. > > The status message https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-April/241140.html. > mentions GCC 13.0.1 report. Is there any stable GCC 13.0.0 tag/branch > available for general us

RE: GCC 13 release date

[AMD Official Use Only - General] Thanks Sam for your prompt response. The status message https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-April/241140.html. mentions GCC 13.0.1 report. Is there any stable GCC 13.0.0 tag/branch available for general use. Regards, Mayank -Original Message- Fr

Re: GCC 13 release date

"Vaish, Mayank via Gcc" writes: > [AMD Official Use Only - General] > > Hi, > > Looking out for GCC 13 release date. GCC Development > plan only mention about GCC 13 > Stage 4 development. > > Please comment on the formal GCC 13 release date. I'm jus

GCC 13 release date

[AMD Official Use Only - General] Hi, Looking out for GCC 13 release date. GCC Development plan only mention about GCC 13 Stage 4 development. Please comment on the formal GCC 13 release date. Thanks. Mayank

I don't want to receive further emails.

I don't want to receive further emails.

Re: Don't want to receive messages

Ruchit Raushan via Gcc writes: > I don't want to receive further emails. Please see https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc -- Arsen Arsenović signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: GCC-13 Branch with RISC-V Performance-Related Backports

We talked about this a bit on IRC, but just to reflect it to the mailing lists: On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 05:34:11 PDT (-0700), s...@gentoo.org wrote: Palmer Dabbelt writes: Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include vari

Re: GCC-13 Branch with RISC-V Performance-Related Backports

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 06:19:07 PDT (-0700), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/18/23 04:34, Kito Cheng wrote: Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include various performance-related backports (ie, patches not suitable for

Don't want to receive messages

I don't want to receive further emails.

Re: RISC-V GCC Patchwork Sync-Up Meeting

On Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:08:42 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote: The topic of having some sort of RISC-V development meeting has come up a handful of times, but we never got around to actually setting anything up. We've had a patchwork sync meeting for the RISC-V Linux port for a few months now a

Re: GCC-13 Branch with RISC-V Performance-Related Backports

On 4/18/23 04:34, Kito Cheng wrote: Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include various performance-related backports (ie, patches not suitable for the standard GCC-13 release branch). Did you consider also include ne

Re: "file name" vs "filename"

> A "file name" is the file's name. It is a property of a file, like the > inode or size. The name exists (or not) regardless of whether we know > what it is. > > A "filename" is a syntactic element, the thing itself, a string of > characters. It is supplied as input or rendered as output.

Re: GCC-13 Branch with RISC-V Performance-Related Backports

Palmer Dabbelt writes: > Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are > planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include various > performance-related backports (ie, patches not suitable for the > standard GCC-13 release branch). > > I don't think we'd actually agreed to

Re: GCC-13 Branch with RISC-V Performance-Related Backports

> > Based on some discussions, it looks like a handful of vendors are > > planning on maintaining GCC-13 branches that include various > > performance-related backports (ie, patches not suitable for the standard > > GCC-13 release branch). Did you consider also include necessary vectorizeor stuffs