Re: Obsolete Solaris 10 support

give a hand. They may dream of a pure clang/llvm based toolchain, but I doubt that it's a reality or even close yet. On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:17 PM Rainer Orth wrote: > C Bergström writes: > > > Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be > impacted by this?

Re: Obsolete Solaris 10 support

Is there anyone in the *open* solaris or variant camp who may be impacted by this? SOL10 gets deprecated and I doubt anyone will really cry fowl, but can it negatively impact any of the similar open source projects that may identify at SOL10, but not be exactly the same... Thoughts? On Mon, Oct

Re: Problem with 447.dealII in spec2006 because of r240707

I'd +1 vote to send them a patch. I've had to do this for other compilers. If you need a hand, I can give you some tips on how to do that and also where to check if this has already been fixed. Thanks On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 10/04/2016 09:41 AM,

Re: Is test case with 700k lines of code a valid test case?

, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Andrey Tarasevich <tarasev...@cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: > >> On 14 Mar 2016, at 16:39, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Andrey Tarasevich >> <tarasev...@cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote: &

Re: Is test case with 700k lines of code a valid test case?

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Andrey Tarasevich wrote: > Hi, > > I have a source file with 700k lines of code 99% of which are printf() > statements. Compiling this test case crashes GCC 5.3.0 with segmentation > fault. > Can such test case be considered valid

[OT] "open standards" in gcc feedback

Hi all, I'm hoping to get the opinions from users/devs in general and hope you can forgive my post. --- To start I'm really annoyed over the past couple of years for what claim to be open standards, but in fact are only pay-to-play or just a facade for corporate agenda. Things which

Re: Original commit history for gfortran

On 06/19/11 10:03 PM, Tobias Schlüter wrote: Hi Christopher, On 2011-06-18 14:39, C. Bergström wrote: On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote: Hi We're in the process of considering

Re: Original commit history for gfortran

On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote: Hi We're in the process of considering contributing to gfortran for a special project, but when we started to vet the codebase we hit a bump in lack of

Re: Original commit history for gfortran

On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote: On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote: Hi We're in the process of considering contributing to gfortran for a special project, but when we started to vet the codebase we hit a bump in lack of

Re: Original commit history for gfortran

On 06/18/11 11:41 PM, Steve Kargl wrote: Good luck with that endeavor. After the gfortran fork, a certain individual would routinely obfusicate the code in one of the repositories via gratuitious code motion, varaible renaming, and whitespace munging. This was an attempt to neutered diff.