On Wednesday, January 10th, 2024 at 7:34 PM, Jason Merrill via Gcc
wrote:
>
>
> On 1/10/24 16:41, Marek Polacek wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 04:24:42PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/10/24 15:59, Marek Polacek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at
On Sunday, January 7th, 2024 at 3:22 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 07, 2024 at 03:12:32PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
>
> > On 1/7/24 08:48, waffl3x via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline
> > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline
The date for stage 4 is listed as the 8th on here, is that date final?
There is at least 1 patch pending (mine) that is complete but Jason
Merril hasn't been active for a few days. He had expressed to me that
he expected the date to be next week on the
On Monday, December 4th, 2023 at 5:37 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2023 at 12:19, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was asked to post a patch for a bugzilla PR to gcc-patches@. Two questions
> > regarding https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#testing :
> >
>
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
Hopefully I fixed all the issues. I also took the opportunity to remove the
small mistake present in v1, so that is no longer a concern.
Thanks again for all the patience.
-AlexFrom 0db52146880faf20e7a7b786dad47c686a5f26d6 Mon Sep 17
Hey Jakub, thanks for the response
and criticism, as soon as I am
back at a computer I will address
the issues you raised, I have a few
questions though.
I apologize in advanced for any
errors in formatting this message,
I'm writing it from a hotel room
on a phone so errors are inevitable,
but
Tested and Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
There's a few test cases that are not properly diagnosed yet, but everything
that is known to fail is marked as xfail. When I tested the new tests I got 390
expected passes and 64 expected failures.
Alright, I have a flight
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-linux with no regressions.
I would like to quickly thank everyone who helped me for their patience as I
learned the ropes of the codebase and toolchain. It is much appretiated and
this would
have been much much more difficult without the support.
This patch
> Hmm... that's disappointing :( nothing was generated.
Function templates are not functions, they are templates of functions, they
will not generate any code unless they are instantiated.
> then again. I've noticed that you've changed pointers to indices.
No, I changed pointers to a template
Here's a quick and dirty example of how this function could be rewritten with
modern C++. I omitted some necessary details, particularly the implementation
of the
linked list iterator. I also wrote it out quickly so I can't be certain it's
100%
correct, but it should give you an idea of whats
>This is from just one source file, which otherwise is "plain C". If I
>was to put it into a library that use "asm tweaked fancy pointers", a
>portable fragment of code becomes "target dedicated" - this is undesired.
I sympathize with your desire to not lock your codebase to a particular
target,
I want to preface this stating that I have little to no experience in compiler
development, I am only merely just getting into it. With that said, I have
messed around
with library design a fair amount, and this seems like something that could be
implemented in a library. It might be slightly
I would like to boldly suggest implementing P0847 should be targeted at
GCC14. In my anecdotal experiences, this feature is very important to
people, and very important to myself, I believe it should be a priority.
I am not suggesting this without offering to contribute, however
because of my
13 matches
Mail list logo
