by default"
> or "warning enabled by default"? Or is that too verbose?
If there's no flag to toggle the warning then why print anything? To me
"enabled by default" implies there's some way to disable it.
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
t them at the end of the build).
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org
47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Sun, 07 Jul 2013 21:57:05 +0200
Oleg Endo wrote:
> - // Randomize the colour, just for asthetics =)
> + // Randomize the colour, just for aesthetics =)
>
> -> missed 'color' (in a couple of places actually)
Because that's the correct way of sp
here any reasons
> why this header is not installed with 4.6?
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/src/patchsets/gcc/4.6.4/gentoo/76_all_4.7.0_c-family-headers.patch?revision=1.1&view=markup
--
Ryan Hillpsn: dirtyepic_sk
gcc-porting/toolchain/wx
On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:29:30 +0200
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> GCC 4.8.0 has been released more than one and half months ago, and the
> number of bugfixes on the branch is growing (70 fixed bugs with 4.8.1
> milestone so far, including 5 P1s), and additionally the C++ frontend
> re
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:57:31 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> GCC 4.8.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.8.0 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.8.0-RC-20130316
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from S
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:11:04 +0300 (EEST)
Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> I got no replies, so I guess there is no will to move GCC to -O3 by
> default, so I shouldn't bother submitting a patch?
>
> As a reminder, cc1 is 0-4% faster but almost 10% bigger executable.
> Testsuite showed no regressio
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:01:37 +0300 (EEST)
Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
> Replying to myself, I was just informed (thanks hp!) that there is the
> "URL" field in bugzilla, where the owner of the bug can add one relevant
> URL. I tried it and it's very useful, it would be even better if I could
>
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:53:45 -0300
Dâniel Fraga wrote:
> I tried to compile Firefox 11 with gcc 4.7 optimized with:
>
> -O3 -march=corei7-avx (I have a core i7 2700k)
>
> But Firefox segfaults (backtrace provided, although it seems
> not very useful):
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:29:13 -0400
NightStrike wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
> > True but takes rather a long time on a cygwin host that's already running
> > "make -j8 check"! So I asked. Apologies for minor laziness, hope you
> > didn't
> > feel /obligated/
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 18:40:35 -0500
Jack Howarth wrote:
> Sebastian,
> It appears that the official tarballs are now posted at
> http://www.cloog.org/
> for cloog and cloog-parma 0.16. Do you plan on placing those both in the
> infrastructure
> directory at gcc.gnu.org's ftp site? If so, the
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:13:02 +0200
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Another point about (1): I believe patchwork should *not* track most of
> the branch patches, and the commit detection shouldn't care about
> release branch commits, only trunk. This is because those are 99% of
> the time for trunk too
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:40:51 -0400
Donald Parsons wrote:
> The package elfutils-libelf-0.145 (or later) also
> supplies the libelf prerequisite. Version 0.142 does
> not work. (versions 0.143, 0.144 unknown)
anything >=0.143 will work.
--
fonts,
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 17:12:17 -0400
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Instructions on how to enable LTO support are described in the
> manual. The following is a summary:
>
> - Install libelf 0.8.12+ (http://www.mr511.de/software/libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz)
> Other versions of libelf are commonly installed in L
On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:29:35 +0200 (CEST)
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009, Ryan Hill wrote:
> >> I haven't been able to bootstrap x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu at all since this
> >> started. Latest attempt was with r151649.
> >> Configured as:
>
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:09:22 -0600
Ryan Hill wrote:
> I haven't been able to bootstrap x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu at all since this
> started. Latest attempt was with r151649.
> Configured as:
>
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.0_pre/work/gcc-4.5.0-/configure
>
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:38:13 +0200 (CEST)
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> i386-unknown-freebsd7.2, specifically, now PR 41326, after it has
> been originally fixed a few days ago.
>
> Gerald
>
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
> warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
> w
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:05:57 -0700
"Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote:
> From: "Dave Korn"
>
> > Dave Korn wrote:
> >
> >> Attached allowed it to build,
> >
> > And with that patch:
> >
> >> ===
> >> All 45 tests passed
> >> ===
>
> Thanks Dave!
>
> This MPC release may
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:51:07 -0600
Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Basile" == Basile STARYNKEVITCH writes:
> Basile> Shouldn't a python script for gdb be installed outside of a directory
> Basile> supposed to contain only ELF libraries? Wouldn't a gdb specific
> Basile> subdirectory be a more app
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:08:32 +0200
Roberto Bagnara wrote:
>
> All the problems of PPL 0.10.1 we are aware of have been
> fixed in the snapshot of PPL 0.10.2 available at
>
> ftp://ftp.cs.unipr.it/pub/ppl/snapshots/
>
> In particular here is what has changed:
>
> - Correctly detect GMP 4.
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 00:02:43 -0500
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 21:41, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:11:37 -0500
> > Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >
> >> I committed the attached fix to the cloog-ppl repo, and I will
> >> prepare
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:11:37 -0500
Sebastian Pop wrote:
> I committed the attached fix to the cloog-ppl repo, and I will prepare
> a new tar.gz for the gcc infrastructure.
Is changing the contents of the tarball without changing the name going
to be a habit or just something we'll have to live w
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 23:05:27 -0500
"Aaron W. LaFramboise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm happy to see that GRAPHITE it is in trunk now!
>
> I don't see any documentation of prerequisites in install.texi yet;
> perhaps we should add this so users can figure out what they need to
> do to get thi
Richard Guenther wrote:
Status
==
We are in Stage 3 and the trunk is open for regression and documentation
fixes only. When we reach zero open P1 regressions, we will create a
release candidate for 4.3.0, branch and announce the opening of Stage 1
for 4.4.
make profiledbootstrap is still
Dorit Nuzman wrote:
>> H. J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>> Why don't we turn on vectorizer at -O3 or even -O2, depending on
>>> ISA? I added -ftree-vectorize to BOOT_CFLAGS on x86-64. According to
>>> -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1, there are 82 loops vectorized in
>>> gcc source. There are no regressions. There a
H. J. Lu wrote:
> Why don't we turn on vectorizer at -O3 or even -O2, depending on
> ISA? I added -ftree-vectorize to BOOT_CFLAGS on x86-64. According to
> -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1, there are 82 loops vectorized in
> gcc source. There are no regressions. There are not much changes
> in bootstra
Hello. I have a question regarding the svn logs that get sent to the
gcc-cvs mailing list on every commit. I was wondering if it would be
possible for those mails that contain a PR number to also include the
title of that PR (ie. the contents of in bugzilla). This
would allow people to find the
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Ryan Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Was there ever any action on this? AFAICS consensus was that the trap
>> would be removed and this behaviour be documented as an extension.
>> There was a bit more discussion of how exactly the documen
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> I realized that I am still not stating my position very clearly. I
>> don't think we should make any extra effort to make this code work:
>> after all, the code is undefined. I just think 1) we should not
>> insert a trap; 2) we should not ICE.
Currently, the way the native CPU detection code in driver-i386.c
is set up, using -m{arch,tune}=native with an Intel Core Duo (*not
Core 2 Duo*) processor will result in -m{arch,tune}=prescott. Is this
the correct setting for this chip? There seems to be a lot of confusion
across the net as to w
30 matches
Mail list logo
