> From: David Malcolm
>
> Thanks Modi.
>
> Before looking at the updated patch in detail, we ought to also address the
> legal prerequisites for contributing.
>
> Does your employer have legal paperwork in place with the FSF for such
> contributions? See:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.ht
@gcc.gnu.org ;
r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de ;
mikest...@comcast.net ; ja...@redhat.com
; Jonathan Wakely ; Richard Biener
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:58 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The patch will ne
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:58 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for
> > "Tools/packages necessary for building GCC" in
> > gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently has some paragraphs labelled:
> >@item ISO C++98
> On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> The patch will need an update to the docs; search for
> "Tools/packages necessary for building GCC" in
> gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently has some paragraphs labelled:
>@item ISO C++98 compiler
> that will need changing.
Added this change in th
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 22:18 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > >
> > > Some nitpicks:
> > >
> > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:18:27PM +, Modi Mo via gcc wrote:
> Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html
I said as long as 4.8.5 works, it is fine with me. If 4.8.2 can be made
to work easily that is useful for the few people who wou
On Oct 28, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond. Sadly, I don't think
> we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
> when there isn't consensus.
I'll just point out that we do have good mechanisms in place. Consensus
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:18 PM Modi Mo wrote:
>
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > >
> > > Some nitpicks:
> > >
> > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this
> On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > Some nitpicks:
> >
> > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this
> > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of
On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 00:49 +, Modi Mo wrote:
Hey all,
I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that
the timing wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is
the timing better now to get this change through?
I've
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 00:49 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that
> the timing wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is
> the timing better now to get this change through?
>
> I've attached the patch Andrew prepare
Hey all,
I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that the timing
wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is the timing better now
to get this change through?
I've attached the patch Andrew prepared. Can I get feedback on the change and
some help testing on
On 10/31/19, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/26/19 11:46 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Krause was also wanting to move to C++11 recently:
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00110.html (this month)
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-09/msg00228.html (last month)
>> As I said in that threa
On 11/23/19 11:33 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/22/19 4:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, Andrew Dean wrote:
Many systems
On 11/22/19 4:41 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, Andrew Dean wrote:
>> Many systems do not have a system compiler n
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 11:36:18PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, Andrew Dean wrote:
> > > > > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years
> > > > > old* one.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:01:43PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, Andrew Dean wrote:
> > > > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years
> > > > old* one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of
> > > > C++11, w
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:02:05PM +, Andrew Dean wrote:
> > > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years
> > > old* one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of
> > > C++11, which is the only reason it would be even near acceptable to
> > > require so
> > Many systems do not have a system compiler newer than this *four years
> > old* one. GCC 4.8 is the first GCC version that supports all of
> > C++11, which is the only reason it would be even near acceptable to
> > require something this *new*.
>
> Agreed. Note we're even shipping new servic
On 10/29/19 8:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> As discussed earlier, we gain most through C++11 support, there is no need
>> to jump to C++17 or C++20 as requirement.
>
> Yes, I've agreed to raise the requirement to GCC 4.8 which provides
On 10/26/19 11:46 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
> Nicholas Krause was also wanting to move to C++11 recently:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00110.html (this month)
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-09/msg00228.html (last month)
> As I said in that thread, I'd want to try just toggling -Wnarro
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:12 PM Segher Boessenkool
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > >>> Ja
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > >>> Jason,
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >>> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
>
; Jonathan Wakely
|
| Subject: Re: GCC selftest improvements
|
| On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
| >
| > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
| > > On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
| > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40
On 10/28/19 3:52 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/25/19 6:01
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > >>> Jason, J
Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 03:41:13PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >>> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
>
On 10/28/19 2:27 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
>>> C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available for platforms that GCC
On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:40:03PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Jason, Jonathan - is the situation on the terrain really that dire that
> > C++11 (or C++14) isn't at all available for platforms that GCC is
> > bootstrapped from?
> The argument that I'd
selftest improvements
|
| On 10/28/19 1:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
| >>
| >> I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond. Sadly, I don't
| >> think
| >> we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
| >> when there isn't
On 10/28/19 1:42 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I'd really like to see us move to C++11 or beyond. Sadly, I don't
>> think
>> we have any good mechanism for making this kind of technical decision
>> when there isn't consensus.
>
> Well, we just do it?
For some reason I thought you were against s
On October 28, 2019 8:40:03 PM GMT+01:00, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> [Andrew]
>>
>> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a
>great many
>> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for
>example,
>> | > requiring
On 10/25/19 6:01 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> [Andrew]
>
> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a great many
> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for example,
> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to be able
>
On 10/25/19, Gabriel Dos Reis via gcc wrote:
> [Andrew]
>
> | > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a great
> many
> | > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for example,
> | > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to be
> able
[Andrew]
| > GCC has some rather unique requirements, in that we support a great many
| > build configurations, some of which are rather primitive - for example,
| > requiring just C++98 with exceptions disabled, in that we want to be able to
| be
| > bootstrappable on relatively "ancient" configu
> From: David Malcolm
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 11:18 PM
> On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 20:50 +, Andrew Dean via gcc wrote:
> Thanks for your email, it looks interesting. Is your code somewhere we can
> see
> it?
It can be -- what is the preferred way to share the code? Though to be honest
On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 20:50 +, Andrew Dean via gcc wrote:
> TLDR: I'd like to propose adding a dependency on a modern unit
> testing framework to make it easier to write unit tests within GCC.
> Before I spend much more time on it, what sort of buy-in should I
> get? Are there any people in par
On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 21:50, Andrew Dean via gcc wrote:
>
> TLDR: I'd like to propose adding a dependency on a modern unit testing
> framework to make it easier to write unit tests within GCC. Before I spend
> much more time on it, what sort of buy-in should I get? Are there any people
> in pa
TLDR: I'd like to propose adding a dependency on a modern unit testing
framework to make it easier to write unit tests within GCC. Before I spend much
more time on it, what sort of buy-in should I get? Are there any people in
particular I should work more closely with as I make this change?
Te
41 matches
Mail list logo
