Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

ojects is highly >unreasonable. This is not, IMO, helping. On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual >project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer >their servi

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

vv On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 06:19:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >It doesn't smell good, however, that Sourceware has been prevented from >presenting its own >expansion plans and proposals at the

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html >> > >>

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html > >On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >>The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:17:15AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >That is not true, Mark. Your objections and questions have been answered at >every stage, privately as well as publicly. Actually, going back through this thread, I see outstanding questions/issues raised by Mark, Frank,

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the >services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of >the

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote: >...But it would be really nice to hear directly from the Linux >Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are proposing, which >parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be mixed and matched, >and how they see this

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of >>

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of >scope creep of the GTI proposal. Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link? It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.

Re: Separate commit mailing lists for trunk/branches possible?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 07:05:48PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > As you have probably been well-aware the amount of traffic sent to the > mailing list has grown dramatically since the switch >to GIT. Last month alone I received over 13000 messages, which accounted >for ~18.5% of all my

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:48:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>By the way, the public-inbox software >>(), as recently mentioned in a >>different thread discussing deficiencies of

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 01:56:04PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >>>I was thinking we might be able to trick pipermail (the web archiver >>>component) to simply name the message web urls after some function of >>>the message-id instead of the sequence number. Will give this a try >>>very

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:14:55AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >>Such a service is not currently available on sourceware, but it'd be >>possible to implement: as messages come in, you'd build a database >>mapping from the Message-ID header to "current Mailman's Pipermail >>URL". > >I was

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:48:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >On 2020-05-06T10:44:46-0400, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Gcc" > wrote: >>>Can pipermail provide stable URLs at all? We really need those, we >>>reference those in commit messages, other mails, bugzilla etc. > >>It would be good to have

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 09:54:06PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >may I also chime in with a related (to some extent), even though a separate >issue? It seems URL rewriting rules designed to replace old-style > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml//current > >URLs pointing to monthly digests to current ones >

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:11:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >Last week after sending status report mails to gcc mailing list, >I've opened the web archive and copied the URLs of those status reports >https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2020-April/232267.html

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 18:02, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 16:46, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>>All of the above is handled by whomever is responsible for the gcc web >>>pages. It wou

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:13:13PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote: >Hi Frank, > >> On 23 Apr 2020, at 16:34, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> >> Hi - >> A re-subscription attempt to the gcc mailing list just failed, expectedly I guess. >> >> I see no sign in the logs of Olivier being banned

Re: Not usable email content encoding

It seems like this discussion doesn't have to be cc'ed to overseers. At the very least it doesn't need to be cc'ed *twice* as someone who apparently doesn't understand that gcc.gnu.org == sourceware.org has cc'ed overseers in both domains. So, I'd appreciate it if you all would please drop

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 10:38:12PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >Therefore I'd be happy to participate in testing a solution for >disabling `From' munging for `p=none' domains. I can't speak for fche but I have a limited amount of time for any computer activity right now. A pinched nerve in

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:53:06PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 04:15:27PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >>>On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:50:51PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >>>>On Wed, 8

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 04:15:27PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:50:51PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >>On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Mark Wielaard wrote: >>>Earlier versions of Mainman2 had some issues which might accidentally >>>change some headers. But the latest fixes make

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:56:09PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >In a way that's amusing and just reinforces my p.o.v. that DMARC is >bollocks. Not that it means anything but I agree 100%. It's like whoever made the "standard" just said "to hell with mailing lists".

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +, Michael Matz wrote: >Can we please switch it off? It's not like we really had a problem before >the switch to mailman. You can't really make statements like this which imply that you are aware of "problems" on sourceware when you're not a sourceware

Re: mailman customization

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 11:54:20AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> I believe we can quite easily customize mailman 2.1 to match our needs. >> The biggest challenge I see is a proper testing as I don't see it easy >> to set up a local mailman instance. I've got a patch that changes: > >I suppose

Re: mailman customization

On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 05:58:51PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote: >On 4/3/20 5:54 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >>Hi - >> >>>I believe we can quite easily customize mailman 2.1 to match our needs. >>>The biggest challenge I see is a proper testing as I don't see it easy >>>to set up a local mailman

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:29:58PM +0200, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >PS: I have a discovered a very serious problem with the mailing lists >that must be fixed by our overseers. > >As an example please look at this one: >https://marc.info/?l=gdb-patches=158571308379946=2 > >you see this: >

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:57:05PM -0700, Unidef Defshrizzle wrote: >We can setup a command line interface, maybe using CURSES, I mean GUIs are >fun, but Jesus Christ they’re full of surprises Command line interface to what? You can read email using whatever interface your want. Archives are

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:46:54PM +, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >I think being software developers we are in this comfortable position >that we can actually make changes to software ourselves if we find >problems or usability issues... > >For example I found it useful on a couple of occasions

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 07:00:59AM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >PS: I would CC you, Christopher Faylor, but your email address is >"cgf-use-the-mailinglist-ple...@gnu.org", so whatever I send there >would not reach you. Well duh? Not being cc'ed is the literal point o

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:34:16PM +0100, Dmitry Mikushin wrote: >Maybe the best form of question is: Could the Overseer be so kind to >release the dump of the original old mailing list on any free public file >server? The old archives are still available via their old URLs, e.g.,

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:29:03PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >-On 3/25/20 7:55 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >>> I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days >>

Re: Can we please have the old mailing list back

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 04:23:02PM +0700, Arseny Solokha wrote: >I believe the canonical place for the "Linux suff" mailing lists these days is >lore.kernel.org, powered by public-inbox[1]. ISTM that software can address >most >if not all needs of those involved in GCC development and even has

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:30:22PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:44:15PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >>> N.B. the CC list has got too big and is causing posts to this thread >>> to be held for moderator approval. >> >>Ah, can

Re: Not usable email content encoding

On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:44:15PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >> N.B. the CC list has got too big and is causing posts to this thread >> to be held for moderator approval. > >Ah, can cycle through the lists and raise that limit. >The default 10 is too low. Didn't you have to lower that limit

Re: gcc mailing list is not being archived

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:10:31AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers wrote: >Hi - > >> one more point: The gcc mailing list including this discussion is >> currently not being archived, the last message is from 2020-03-06. > >Found & fixed a permission problem with the mailmnan archives.

Re: GCC wwwdocs move to git done

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >The binary is 20 years old and, somehow, the source code used to build >it seems to have disappeared. Sorry. Not 20 years: -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 574221 Mar 22 2013 /usr/local/bin/mhc cgf

Re: GCC wwwdocs move to git done

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 09:37:54AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >The binary is 20 years old and, somehow, the source code used to build >it seems to have disappeared. Sorry. Not 20 years: -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 574221 Mar 22 2013 /usr/local/bin/mhc cgf

Re: GCC wwwdocs move to git done

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:25:30PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: >Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 01:28, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>I've done the move of GCC wwwdocs to git (using the previously posted and >>>discussed scripts), including setting up the post-receive hook to do the

Re: GCC wwwdocs move to git done

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 01:25:30PM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote: >Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >>On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 01:28, Joseph Myers wrote: >>>I've done the move of GCC wwwdocs to git (using the previously posted and >>>discussed scripts), including setting up the post-receive hook to do the

Re: Complaint about webpage

On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 02:44:05PM +0800, Jim Wilson wrote: >On 7/3/19 8:02 PM, Tara Hamilton wrote: >>I’ve just been looking at your website and I came across this webpage: >>... >> >>Unfortunately, when I click the link ‘...’ it redirects me to a payday >>loan site. Every time these links show

Re: Please block seu...@linux.vnet.ibm.com from gcc-regression

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:30:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: >On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote: > >> We're sorry for the problems. Bill was updating our scripts to enable the >> gcc-6-branch for testing, and unfortunately things went massively wrong. >> This has been shut down, and we're

Re: Account creation disabled on GCC Bugzilla

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:56:19AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: What should I tell a user who wants to create an account? That they should follow the instructions and contact overseers.

[COMMITTED] Remove myself from MAINTAINERS

Committed as revision 214157. 2014-08-19 Christopher Faylor me@cgf.cx * MAINTAINERS: Remove myself Index: MAINTAINERS === --- MAINTAINERS (revision 214153) +++ MAINTAINERS (working copy) @@ -136,7 +136,6 @@ VMS

Re: Remove spam in GCC mailing list

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 08:40:07PM +0900, Tae Wong wrote: You want to send a mail to python-dev at python dot org. The spam still exists in gcc-bugs mailing list: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2013-08/msg00689.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2013-08/msg00759.html

Re: Ping^2 Re: Target header etc. cleanup patch

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:56:52PM -0400, Jie Zhang wrote: On 04/21/2011 06:06 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Thu, 21 Apr 2011, Richard Guenther wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:09 PM, Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com wrote: Ping^2. This patch

Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 10:25:50AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 05:13:44PM +, Nick Clifton wrote: * We have to make sure that zlib will build on all of the hosts that we care about. Should the situation arise where the zlib does not build on a particular host,

Re: How to update my SSH authorized_keys on gcc.gnu.org?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:27:35AM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Andreas Schwab sch...@redhat.com wrote: H.J. Lu hjl.to...@gmail.com writes: Is there a way to update my SSH authorized_keys on gcc.gnu.org? See http://sourceware.org/ml/overseers/2008-q2/msg00112.html.

[[webmaster] New contact address for ftp.fu-berlin.de]

- Forwarded message from Holger Weiss holger AT CIS DOT FU-Berlin DOT DE - Hello, ftp.fu-berlin.de is listed as a mirror of the gcc.gnu.org FTP site on http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html with Felix von Leitner's e-mail address. As Felix is no longer a contact for our site, could you

Re: Please block henry2000 from the wiki

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 04:08:03PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: If you want to help admin the wiki, I am more than happy to make you a super user. That goes for Steven, etc. Wait. Are we talking about giving people root access on sourceware just to clean up a wiki? Hopefully this is not the

Re: REMOVE ME PLEASE

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 04:26:29PM -0500, duane agate wrote: COULD YOU PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THIS EMAIL LIST? SOMEONE LISTED ME AS A JOKE! NOT SURE WHAT A GCC EVEN IS.. MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS; corvet...@comcast.net. THANKS. There is no one with your email address subscribed to gcc.gnu.org.

Re: Please, do not use the merged revisions log as the commit message when merging

On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:34:08PM -0500, John Freeman wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 03:01:03PM -0500, John Freeman wrote: Daniel Berlin wrote: It's listed on the wiki that explains how to maintain branches :) I had no idea such a wiki even

Re: Official GCC git repository

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:30:57PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote: I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper author names. Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login name to Author? I have a list that is about

Re: Please, do not use the merged revisions log as the commit message when merging

On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 02:35:08PM +0200, Manuel L?pez-Ib??ez wrote: Dear GCC devs, Please do *not* use the full logs of the merged revisions as the commit message of a merge. Apart from making the output of svn log useless, commits messages are parsed are tracked for PR numbers, the commit

Re: gcc will become the best optimizing x86 compiler

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 04:14:49PM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote: Since there is no libc mailing list, I thought that the gcc list is the place to contact the maintainers of libc. Am I on the wrong list? Or are there no maintainers of libc? See: http://sources.redhat.com/glibc/ You want the

Re: GCC 4.2.4 Released

[Reply-to set] Please remove gcc-announce from your responses to this thread. I'm getting tired of rejecting all of the non-announce email. cgf On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 10:21:52AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 09:03:26AM -0400, Paul M. Dubuc wrote: I have been trying to find a

Re: Official GCC git repository

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:42PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: Christopher == Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christopher After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on Christopher gcc.gnu.org so that the git

Re: Official GCC git repository

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote: Christopher == Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Christopher After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on Christopher gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every Christopher time an email message

[ADMINISTRIVIA] lost email

I wanted to let everyone know that sourceware.org/gcc.gnu.org/cygwin.com experienced an email outage for a while starting at 2006/10/15 04:43 GMT to about 2006/10/15 18:46 GMT. During that time some email was lost. This was due to a typo that I added to one of the email filters to attempt to

Re: Google group for generic System V Application Binary Interface

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 08:09:15PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: Haven't had to suffer through an htDig session in a looong time now. We haven't used htDig on sourceware for a few months now. It's mnogosearch these days. cgf

Re: Notes of the libgcc-math BOF at the summit.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 02:57:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: Issues of providing both standard conforming and target optimized math runtimes for GCC were discussed. Thanks for posting this. Since I wasn't able to attend the summit this year, I really appreciate seeing summaries like this.

Re: Free as in Freedom

On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 05:02:41PM -0700, Alexander Verhaeghe wrote: Quote Jan-Benedict Glaw So please shut up now. Quite friendly I must say, it's the german way I suppose of handling things? To Jan-Benedict Glaw I WON'T SHUT UP because of Free as in Freedom! However, you have been told quite

ADMINISTRIVIA about Re: Free as in Freedom

I thought I should point out that this thread has hit the too many recipients spam blocking rule at gcc.gnu.org so there are a number of messages from various people (but mostly from Alexander) which are not making it to the mailing list. cgf

Re: mingw32 subtle build failure

On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:58:31AM +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:37:51PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: And I forgot to ask: who the heck is supposed to set USE_MINGW_MSYS? (grep is soo sloow

Re: mingw32 subtle build failure

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 11:37:51PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: And I forgot to ask: who the heck is supposed to set USE_MINGW_MSYS? (grep is soo sloow on my win32 machine) For the record, I don't do Msys. Please don't cc me about msys problems. cgf

Re: Problem with pex-win32.c

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 09:16:47PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: I don't see any reason why cygwin should be causing a console window to flash when spawn is used. Maybe this is something that should be pursued in the Cygwin list. The test cases will be useful

Re: Problem with pex-win32.c

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 09:43:12PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: What cygcheck output would be helpful? I've never run cygcheck until just now, and it seems to have lots of options. By the way, I don't see any reason to suspect that there's a Cygwin bug. The situation is:

Re: Problem with pex-win32.c

On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 04:56:21PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: As a test case, I'd recommend the latest code I posted. If a MinGW application tries to open CONOUT$ with CreateFile, it gets INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, so the OS doesn't seem to think the console is available. I

Re: Problem with pex-win32.c

On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:27:02PM -0500, Ross Ridge wrote: Mark Mitchell wrote: Cygwin Xterm parent spawn: Pops up DOS window. parent nostd: No output from child. parent std: Works. DOS Console === parent spawn: Works. parent nostd: No output from child. parent std: No

Re: Request to become moderator of crossgcc mailing list

[Note that reply-to is set to sourcemaster to prevent any further pollination in the gcc mailing list] On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 09:14:12AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: The crossgcc mailing list really needs some moderator lovin'. e.g. an address on the crossgcc mailing list is bouncing, and needs

Re: GCC mailing list archive search omits results after May 2005

On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 11:03:12PM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, DJ Delorie wrote: Summary of the thread: it's known about and may never be fixed, but alternative searchable archives exist (gmane, nabble, probably others like marc and mail-archive too). Could we put in a

Re: New SVN Wiki page

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 01:30:13AM +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: Mike Stump [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uhm, I'm not sure how to explain this without being too pedantic. Does this sound clearer? This tool tracks each individual change (fine-grained) and will never reapply an already applied

Re: New SVN Wiki page

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 06:01:52PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: I just updated the cvs/svn shell on gcc.gnu.org. It now has the ability to add a v2 key to the system: ssh gcc.gnu.org 'updatekey' ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub This will add

Re: CVS access to the uberbaum tree

On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 10:56:01AM -0700, Jim Wilson wrote: Peter Barada wrote: Does the uberbaum tree exist on savanna, or is it only on sources.redhat.com? If so, what is the procedure for accessing it? I would not recommend use of uberbaum. There are some old-time ex-Cygnus hackers that use

Re: Update on GCC moving to svn

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 08:47:19PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: Angela, you said you had a good solution to the restricted shell problem (IE the need to allow both cvs server and svnserve to run). ? I wrote a script which seems to work for providing a restricted shell. Does Angela have something

Re: Cross Compiler Unix - Windows

WHY are you resurrecting this discussion? On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 03:30:37PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote (after a 2+ week delay): On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote: Huh? What does Red Hat have to do with anything? Red Hat doesn't provide the tools. Cygwin is a volunteer effort

Re: Any plan to support Windows/x86-64?

On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:26:43PM -0400, Ross Ridge wrote: Is there any plan to support Windows/x86-64? I haven't heard of anyone wanting to work on such a port. What are needed for the port? What you'ld need for any OS port. GCC needs to support the Windows x64 ABI, you need a suitable

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:33:19PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:23:54PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Maybe one solution would be to patch pex-win32 for mingw so that it could understand '#!' style shell scripts? That would at least allow bootstrapping. That would

Re: Cross Compiler Unix - Windows

release on linux doesn't mean that I'd recommend doing this to every person who wants to compile stuff for Windows. -- Christopher Faylor spammer? - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cygwin Co-Project Leader[EMAIL PROTECTED] TimeSys, Inc.

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 02:20:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:30:03PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Well, it's stopping a real fix for the MinGW build failure being made. Adding #! support to libiberty won't work because the problem scripts have MSYS/Cygwin paths

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:59:24PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: pex-win32 is used by both MinGW and generic winnt targets, so I'd say keeping it generic is preferred, but if MinGW can be detected, add those checks too. So, should it default to finding an executable on the path first and then look for

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:00:53PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: So, should it default to finding an executable on the path first and then look for MinGW/MSYS versions of the program if it can't find the executable on the path? Hmmm... 99% of the cases will be #!/bin/sh anyway. What's the right

Re: 4.2 Project: @file support

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:00:50AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: FWIW, I should note that GCJ already has support for @file style list of input files: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcj/Input-and-output-files.html and has had it for quite some time now. DJGPP and Cygwin hosted programs will

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:30:03PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Well, it's stopping a real fix for the MinGW build failure being made. Adding #! support to libiberty won't work because the problem scripts have MSYS/Cygwin paths for the shell (eg. /bin/sh) that aren't likely to be valid to plain

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:38:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:05:26AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Christopher Faylor wrote: This would conflict with my proposed changes to pex-win32.c . It seems like getting '#!' functioning on mingw would

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 09:33:19AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Can someone with approval privilege over the build system look at this, and OK it? (it's a very simple patch) I must apologize for the delay in handling this. This alternative patch avoids that mingw is hardcoded in the makefiles.

Re: [patch] Fix i386-mingw32 build failure

On Sat, Aug 06, 2005 at 01:37:44PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: PING ** 2 Attached patch fixes PR bootstrap/22259 (right now, a simple ./configure make build fails on i386-mingw32). It creates a special case for in-tree as, collect-ld and nm scripts: since mingw32 cannot spawn shell scripts, it

Re: Mailing list archive header wrong for fortran

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 12:14:38PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: Jack Howarth pointed out to me that when you look at the archives for the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/current/, you get this header: This is the mail

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 05:23:54PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Maybe one solution would be to patch pex-win32 for mingw so that it could understand '#!' style shell scripts? That would at least allow bootstrapping. That would be wonderful, and that's exactly the right place to put it too. I'm

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:21:04PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:14:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: Ok. Given that 'cp' was an acceptable fallback in the original version of the above script, I wonder why 'cp' wasn't used instead of creating a shell script

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:25:06PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Except that cp is already used as a fallback for when ln doesn't work. If the tool is likely not to work after a cp then shouldn't the fallback condition be to always create a shell script (or .bat file)? One could argue that, in the

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:58:05PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Is that actually true, though? Doesn't GNU ld try to locate files relative to its invoked path? Sometimes, for sysroots and ldscripts. I wouldn't expect MinGW (or any native linker) to use this feature. GCC usually passes ld

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 11:10:49PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: Wouldn't that mean that 'cp' is a valid fallback even for non-GNU lds? We don't know what *else* a non-gnu linker/assembler might need. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is some feeling for whether the shell script method is there

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:07:33AM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: PING. Could one of the mingw/cygwin maintainers review this patch? Or can someone else do it? http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-07/msg00086.html I'd prefer that Danny review this but neither of us has the right to approve this

Re: PING [4.1 regression, patch] build i686-pc-mingw32

On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 10:03:14PM +0200, FX Coudert wrote: I'd prefer that Danny review this but neither of us has the right to approve this patch. Well, then, who has the right to approve such a patch? However, it seems like you're adding extra stuff to the Makefile where it is already trying

Re: Write after approval - processed by None.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:01:51PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 03:57:02PM -0800, James E Wilson wrote: System adminstration work is performed by overseers AT sources PERIOD redhat PERIOD com overseers AT gcc PERIOD gnu PERIOD org works just as well, since it's the same