Dear community,
Although I have not been involved with GCC for a number of years, I would
like to share with the whole community the sad news that Prof Laurie
Hendren passed away recently. Her work on SIMPLE was a key inspiration for
the Tree SSA work in the early 2000s (
https://www.gnu.org/soft
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> FYI, I found the following thread which reports a similar problem,
> but without and solution :-(
>
> CC'ing Diego, maybe he remembers the solution from back then...
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2011-03/msg00083.html
Oh, wow. No
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> About using the LLVM IR - similar issue I think, plus it is probably
> too far away
> from GCC so that what we'll end up will only look like LLVM IR but not
> actually
> be LLVM IR.
I don't think this is feasible at all, actually. As I s
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:59 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> My goal for unit-testing passes is to be able to dump/reload the GIMPLE
> IR in a form that's:
> (A) readable by both humans and programs, and
> (B) editable by humans
> (C) roundtrippable for some subset of the IR
> (D) can support t
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 6:03 AM, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On stackoverflow
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21660563/can-gcc-compile-gimple,
> they said GIMPLE FE project is dead. Please let me know if I can work
> on it for gsoc.
I stopped working on GIMPLE FE a long time ago. Even th
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Agreed. I think the google project went further, but with Lawrence retiring,
> I think it's been abandoned.
We got up to the point where we could store and re-use pre-parsed
images of headers. The big problem were those headers with exposed
re
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Ilya Palachev wrote:
> ping?
>
> On 15.04.2015 10:41, Ilya Palachev wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One more question.
>>
> Does anybody know with which options should the perf be executed so that to
> collect appropriate data for the autofdo converter?
>From the autofdo p
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/03/2015 09:30 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
>>> Could we u
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:10 AM, xue yinsong wrote:
>So it’s better not to try to read the exact dump format.
>Could we use a similar but more complete syntax instead?
Absolutely. The initial attempt for gimple fe was to use a tuple-based
syntax that is very easy to parse. But that was only chos
On 04/02/15 11:59, xue yinsong wrote:
I suppose our goal is to translate the dumped program back to
the C source code (otherwise we can simply retain the gotos and
labels since they are already `valid’ in C). In this case we have to
convert the gotos back to if-elses and whiles. As long as
CFG
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:09 AM, xue yinsong wrote:
> I’m glad to get started now.
> Could you please give me some specific directions to work on ?
Sorry. I wasn't clear enough. You'd first need to find someone willing
to mentor. I'm not going to be involved in GSoC for GCC this year.
Diego.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:54 AM, xue yinsong wrote:
> Somehow this project is not in the gsoc ideas list, and it’s been one year
> since the last commit(According to
> https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gimple-front-end/ChangeLog).
>
> Could someone tell me if this project is still active and
On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Friday 2015-02-06 16:42, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> As such, I propose to become a write-after-approval maintainer
>> and relinquish all the other maintainer roles I had.
>
> Thanks for your contributions over the years,
MAINTAINERS
index 22a21ee..2cf1cc4 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -31,7 +31,6 @@ Michael Meissner
Jason Merrill
David S. Miller
Joseph Myers
-Diego Novillo
All the videos for Cauldron 2014 are now available at the
conference page:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Thanks to Simon Cook for processing the videos and setting them
up!
If you notice anything missing or mis-labeled, please let me
know.
Thanks. Diego.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Ludovic Courtès
wrote:
>
> "Joseph S. Myers" skribis:
>
> > In accordance with GNU principles we should be making the videos available
> > without depending on non-free JavaScript as well (I don't know if Google+
> > makes videos readily available without JS or wi
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sessions were re
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> Sessions were recorded on video. We will be publishing them from
>> the GNU Tools Google+ page when they are available.
>
> I take it they'll be available in a
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Francois Berenger
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Francois Berenger
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Complete in the sense that, by parsing back this text file
>>> with a
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> If sourceware has enough room, I suppose they could be converted into
> an appropriate format and stored in sourceware's ftp space. Could you
> take care of the conversion, upload and publishing, in case the
> origi
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Francois Berenger
wrote:
> Complete in the sense that, by parsing back this text file
> with an external program it would be possible to reconstruct the original AST
> that gcc was working on (and dumped out).
It isn't. These dumps are meant to be debugging aids.
If you made a presentation at this year's Cauldron and are
allowed to share your slides, please add them to the wiki
in the slides and notes section:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014#Slides_and_Notes
If you don't have access to GCC's wiki, you can create your own
user. If that does not work
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
> Agreed (no experience, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where what
> Andi
> describes is the case!)
We already live in that world. This would not change that. I quite
like the proposal.
> What is "Bikeshedding"? I've not heard this term
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Roman Gareev wrote:
> Dear gcc contributors,
>
> could you please answer a few questions about the implementation of
> vec.h? Should we always use “create” to initialize, for example,
> vec or is it possible to do it using “safe_grow_cleared”
> or a similar functio
Some useful information for the conference this weekend:
Friday, 18th July 2014, 6.30pm to 9pm
The Centre for Computing History
Rene Court
Coldhams Road
Cambridge CB1 3EW
http://www.computinghistory.org.uk/
Saturday, 19th July 2014, 7.30pm to 10.30pm
Murray Edwards College
University of Cambridg
I have posted the presentation abstracts at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Presenters, please make sure that I have not butchered
the abstract that you sent when you registered your talk.
Thanks. Diego.
I have posted the presentation schedule at
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Presenters, please make sure that your talk is listed and
at a time slot that does not conflict with your travel or
other restrictions.
We are also finalizing details on the Reception and Dinner
venues (Fri night a
If you want to take advantage of the promotional accomodation
rates at St. Catherine's college, you will need to make
your reservations *soon*.
Details at the conference page: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Thanks. Diego.
An update to this year's Cauldron:
- We have been able to accept everyone in the registration
waiting list! If you were in the waiting list but have not yet
received a confirmation, please contact us at
tools-cauldron-ad...@googlegroups.com.
- If you need a travel visa for the UK, please c
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>> [ I foolishly sent this with the document as an attachment... hopefully it
>> gets rejected and anyone interested can simply download the document from
>> the wiki..]
>>
>> Over the
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> Comments or suggestions?
On the surface it looks like a nice idea. However, I would like to
understand the scope of this. Are you thinking of a pattern matcher
with peephole like actions? Or would you like to evolve a DSL capable
of wri
An update to this year's Cauldron. We have almost reached
capacity. There are only a few slots left for registration.
If you still have not registered, please do it quickly. As soon
as we fill up, I will start a waiting list. Priority will be
given to those proposing a presentation or BoF.
If yo
==
GNU Tools Cauldron 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Call for Abstracts and Participation
18-20 July 2014
Cambridge, England
=
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> * GCC and LLVM collaboration / The Open Source Compiler Initiative
>
> With LLVM mature enough to feature as the default toolchain in some
> Unix distributions, and with the inherent (and profitable) share of
> solutions, ideas and code betwee
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> I'll be at the GNU Cauldron this year, feel free to come and discuss
> this and other ideas. I hope to participate more in the GCC side of
> things, and I wish some of you guys would do the same on our side. And
> hopefully, in a few years, we
==
GNU Tools Cauldron 2014
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2014
Call for Abstracts and Participation
18-20 July 2014
Cambridge, England
=
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:08 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
>>> i
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Would it be better to include tree.h instead of tree-core.h (tree.h
> includes tree-core.h anyway), or shall I leave these macros untouched
> ?
Better leave these macros intact for now. We are trying to flatten out
the #include tree.
Bah. Forgot to remove html.
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
> wrote:
>>
>> I was wondering if it was a good idea to replace do-while macros with
>> static inline functions
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> On 19 November 2013 18:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> Right, because you're using 4.8. These warnings disappear when using
>> trunk and/or do not actually break the build. I suppose this is too
>> much for
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 12:08:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> [conffig-list.mk]
>> Really, the only thing interesting about the script is the broad set
>> of targets it uses. If you just added them to the schedule of buil
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> Hi Diego!
>
> On Tue, 2013-11-19 10:20:48 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
>> contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Sebastian Huber
wrote:
> On 2013-11-19 16:20, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
>> contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc on a very wide
>> collection
I've been thinking that it would be very useful for buildbots to run
contrib/config-list.mk. This tests stage1's all-gcc on a very wide
collection of targets. It builds everything with -Werror, so it
requires a recent host compiler (ideally trunk or the latest release).
Currently, many targets are
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> assignment in general to fix bug 58943. I'd be happy for front ends to
> move to doing all these things themselves, rather than trying to define
> GENERIC in a way that works for every language's requirements on when
> things are evaluate
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Really the best place to start IMHO would be to evict 'tree' from the
> front ends. That would really be a step towards making the front ends
> independent of the rest of the compiler, and it would simplify changes
> towards static 'tree'
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> You know - 'tree's were a design decision (well, just my guess - I wasn't
> around 25 years ago ...). They are a perfect match to represent an AST.
Yes, of course. It may have been the right decision at the time. But
design is a dynamic
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> Thus "fixing" trees would be far better as you'd win for both frontend
> and middle-end code!
For FEs, sure. I agree. But right now the focus is on fixing the
interface between FEs and the ME. One thing at a time.
Finally separating FE
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Note that we have tons of code which accept either objects or types,
> both in the frontends and in the middle-end, so changing TREE_TYPE
> from tree to something else is definitely non-trivial.
Well, sure it's hard. This is the whole poin
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's time to move on and do something sensible with the core parts of our
> ILs so that we're all more effective in the long run.
My sentiments, exactly!
Diego.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jeff Law writes:
>
>> Thoughts or comments?
>
> If noone tests java completely then it will quickly bitrot won't it?
>
> So ideally some bot would still regularly build/test it.
> If you don't do that you could as well just remove the code.
>
>
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Thoughts or comments?
I fully support this. I've been wanting to remove Java from the
default bootstrap for a long time now. Bringing in Go seems like a
good idea as well.
Diego.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> gimplify would be routines that work on trees since that's what the front
> end will present. And thats why the backend will no longer need to gimplify
> anything... It'll just build stuff using the gimple-stmt build and the
> gimple type
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Longer term... the BE will not be calling into gimplify at all.. it will be
> purely a front end thing. As direct tree access vanishes, the optimizers
> will be forced to generate gimple directly, as they should.
Right. Which is the rout
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> There are no classes. It's an include dependency relationship of the files
> I'm trying to split out Ie who includes/has visibility to a
> file/component.
Ah, thanks.
> Isnt "gimplify" clear to everyone? :-) I've even been referring
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:26 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I've made 4 attempts now to split gimple.[ch] into reasonable component
> parts, and I've finally found something that I can make work and fits my
> plans.
>
> I've attached a diagram to (hopefully :-) clarify things.
That's not a class hi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> I wonder what it'd take to have a cpp extension to include a file in
> such a manner as to
> emit a diagnostic if the items declared / #defined inside are used
> directly by a file
> that includes the file that does the thus guarded includ
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> The question is... Do we allow a .h file like this to be an aggregator,
> meaning a file can just include tree-ssa.h and get all this, or do we push
> it all down to the .c file, and actually include what each one needs. Or do
> we pick a
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I've checked in the automatic dependency tracking patch series.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! A long time in the making, but I'm
glad you persevered.
Diego.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> I have established Google+ and Twitter pages for the GNU Toolchain
> (GCC, Binutils, GDB) as additional, un-official communication channels
> for announcements and highlights of interesting mailing list
> discussions.
Thanks David. Defini
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-29 10:34:40 +0200, Rainer Orth
> wrote:
>>
>> I honestly wouldn't worry about such legacy systems: their respective
>> maintainers take care of testing them, and it would be hard nowadays to
>> even find both hardware an
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:08:26PM +0200, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> I do not care very much but I disagree. Having some files with .c
>> suffix and some with .cc suffix would imply some sort of difference
>> where there is going to be none.
>
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to suggest that new implementation files have
> the '.cc' extension, unless they are meant to be processed
> with a C compiler. (I am not proposing wholesale renaming.)
Agreed.
Diego.
I have uploaded all the videos we recorded at the Cauldron to
the workshop page (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013).
The videos are also available at the YouTube playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsgS8fWwKJZhrjVEN7tsQyj2nLb5z0n70
If you think your talk was recorded but you do no
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 04:59 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>> Not sure if I completely understand, but would this change make it
>> easier to deal with subdirectory branches? It's pretty horrid now.
>
>
> That&#x
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> I'd like to make some changes to the GCC git-svn mirror. Specifically, I
> want to move all the SVN branches from remotes/ into heads/ and split the
> subdirectory branches (redhat, google, etc) into the individual branches.
Not sure if I c
I have uploaded all the slides I received to the wiki page.
If you presented a talk and do not see your slides in
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013, please fix the link
yourself or let me know and I'll add them to the table (if you
can fix the links yourself, you'll be doing me a big favour).
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Today I started resurrecting my old automatic dependency patch.
Thanks Tom! I'd hug you if you weren't so ugly ;)
> There may be more missing dependencies. Please try out this branch if
> you would. You can report bugs to me, just send the
An update on this year's Cauldron.
As I mentioned before, we have reached the maximum number of
attendees that we can accept. Registrations are now closed.
If you had registered but will no longer be able to attend,
please let us know so we can free up that slot for someone else.
I have added
An update on this year's Cauldron.
We have reached the maximum number of attendees that we can
accept. Registrations are now closed. If you still wish to
attend, contact us at tools-cauldron-ad...@googlegroups.com.
We have started a waiting list and will let you know if a slot
opens up
If you
An update on this year's Cauldron.
The presentation abstracts are now available at
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013
If you do not see yours, please send it to
tools-cauldron-ad...@googlegroups.com.
Diego.
An update on this year's Cauldron.
The schedule is now available at http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013
We will start on Fri 12/Jul at 19:00. Presentations will run Sat
all day and Sun until about 17:00.
We have a very packed schedule, so it is unlikely that we will be
able to add more presen
On 2013-06-12 13:23 , Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi everyone, but especially Diego :-)
it seems to me that our new C++ vectors have some problems holding
derived classes. For example, when try to compile the following
The vec implementation in vec.[hc] must be a POD because we store
vectors in uni
On 2013-05-28 11:55 , lluvia_li...@lavabit.com wrote:
How can I reach that information?
http://gcc.gnu.org
See the section 'Release Series and Status'.
Diego.
An update on this year's Cauldron. We are getting close to the
limit on the presentations and BoFs, so if you are interested in
organizing a BoF or giving a presentation, please send us an
abstract soon.
We will still accept presentations and/or BoFs on-site the first
day of the workshop. Howev
On 2013-05-07 07:29 , Jakub Jelinek wrote:
There is one P1 bug currently open (--disable-nls bootstrap issue
on MinGW, Diego, can you please look at it?)
Sure. I'm (finally) on it.
Diego.
On 2013-04-19 10:21 , Paulo Matos wrote:
struct GTY(()) LOOP_INFO
{
...
vec infos;
You are declaring a heap vector here. Since your structure is in GC
memory, the vector must also be in GC memory. Add 'va_gc' to the
arguments; and make infos a pointer (a sad side-effect of using GC):
On 2013-04-18 16:58 , Hendrik Greving wrote:
Hi,
this is w.r.t. an older GCC version, I took a quick look and it looks
like it's still roughly the same in recent GCC's.
In function c-decl.c:grokdeclarator: I am debugging something and am
wondering, what does an IDENTIFIER_POINTER (id->identifie
On 2013-04-04 04:49 , Richard Biener wrote:
But yes, testing is the most time-consuming part, and the testsuite
harness overhead is big. A combined bootstrap&test target could
indeed interleave target library build and testing. General improvements
to parallel testing support (hack upstream dej
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> For reference, these docs are:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/User-GC.html#User-GC
Thanks.
> (It seems a shame that one has to write 3 almost-identical functions; I
> wonder if there's a clean way of writing the traversal code only
On 2013-04-03 12:09 , David Malcolm wrote:
I tried grepping for these, but didn't see any. Where are these? Is
this in svn trunk, or in a branch?
vec and edge_def. You need to grep for 'GTY((user))'. The
documentation should guide you in what you need to do.
Diego.
On 2013-03-28 17:32 , Richard Biener wrote:
Ah well, sorry about that.
Thanks. No harm done.
Fine. As long as reviewers resist enhancements to gengtype and push
people to rely on manual marking.
Agreed. In this sense, I would like to consider gengtype*.[ch] frozen
to new features and eve
On Thu Mar 28 09:53:24 2013, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
what about -- as interim plan -- add support for inheritance while we are
still working on the longer term?
Support for inheritance is tricky and convoluted. Using manual markers
in your class is much more direct. There may be rough edges
On Thu Mar 28 08:53:03 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
Eh - in fact you _promised_ to do that in trade for accepting the C++
conversion!
Never trust promises from google ... *sigh*
You need to calm down. This childish attitude is insulting and
counterproductive.
The gengtype conversion was pa
On 2013-03-28 07:57 , Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Does gengetype works with inheritance now? I could not
find anything to that effect in the documentation.
No. The plan is to get rid of gengtype by implementing manual markers
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cxx-conversion/gc-alternatives). But those
pl
We have negotiated a reduced rate of $105/night (+ tax) at the
Avante Hotel in Mountain View.
860 E. EL CAMINO REAL, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040
650-940-1000
https://www.jdvhotels.com/hotels/california/silicon-valley-hotels/hotel-avante
Here is the link for registration:
https://reservations.ihotel
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> will GCC be a mentoring organization for Google Summer of Code this
> year? Has somebody already volunteered to administer this?
I used to administer GCC's participation, but I will not be doing it
this year. Tobias (CCd) said he might be
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> I've been using a couple of DejaGnu board files to test multilibs for
> which I don't have any way to execute tests, and for which I can't even
> link because I don't have compatible libraries. I'd like to share but
> don't know where to put
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> I'm trying to make IL verifying more streamlined - it's often
> that passes have some random (or no) verification in their TODO
> which makes pinning down issues to specific passes hard.
>
> Thus I propose to unify the various TODO_verify_
A reminder about this year's Cauldron (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2013)
If you intend to participate, but not necessarily present, please
let us know as soon as possible. This will allow us to plan for
space and food. Send a message to
tools-cauldron-ad...@googlegroups.com stating your int
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:18 PM, wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:04 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Ah, so if we rename a file with 'svn rename', its history will be
>> preserved across the rename? In that case, renaming files should not
>> be
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Philip Martin wrote:
>
>> The new file must have been explicitly added, rather than copied or
>> moved, and so the history is broken. An example of a history preserving
>
> The issue there is that cvs2svn doesn't / didn
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I have no opinion on whether it is better to rename files now or later.
>
> I do think it is better to rename the files at some point.
>
> I would vote for renaming to an extension of ".cc".
Likewise.
One problem I've noticed is that re
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:31 AM, Alec Teal wrote:
> On 13/02/13 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>> It's just a filename ... we compile it with a C++ compiler.
>>
>> Richard.
>
> I feel silly now, why not use .cpp? SVN's move not good enough?
>
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Is this a known issue?
No, thanks for the report. I'll try to see what's going on (though
you may need to ping me in a few days).
Diego.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Alec Teal wrote:
>> That is a need that g++ cannot currently satisfy. With plugins, one
>> could do something along those lines, but they are heavier, and are at
>> the mercy of the full compiler. Additionally, g++ has very low
>> fidelity wrt the input program;
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 10:23 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 23, 2013, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>> an internal training program Jeff Law devised over a decade ago (*)
>>
>>
>>> [Before anybody asks, the training program is probably no longer
>>>
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> This is very different from putting it as one among so many other things on
> the wiki. Look at it from the view point of a newcomer. There are so many
OK, then. Reorganize GettingStarted to make it prominent and
advertise it. Move the oth
[ We have drifted way off the original subject. ]
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> Yes, absolutely. And GCC community should consider it important to bring in
> newcomers particularly young students and experimenters from the academia.
>
> Why is it that most student proje
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> I would like to take this training program to the next level but so long
> it remains my personal baby, my funding agency does not feel that I have
> accomplished much because they feel that if my program has any merit,
> the GCC community w
1 - 100 of 1389 matches
Mail list logo
