On 23/01/17 13:41, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:51:44AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
>> The last part is moot, as we should strive to not move pages and thus break
>> links.
>
> I meant updating URLs in the pages when they refer to external web pages
> which move over time (or
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 04:51:44AM -0800, Per Bothner wrote:
> On 01/23/2017 01:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:01:24AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > On 22/01/17 18:41, Per Bothner wrote:
> > > > In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored.
> > >
> > > Because
On 01/23/2017 01:05 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:01:24AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 22/01/17 18:41, Per Bothner wrote:
In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored.
Because of the historical interest? That's a good point, and perhaps
I was too hasty. Sorry.
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:01:24AM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 22/01/17 18:41, Per Bothner wrote:
> > In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored.
>
> Because of the historical interest? That's a good point, and perhaps
> I was too hasty. Sorry.
But then it should be probably moved
On 22/01/17 18:41, Per Bothner wrote:
> In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored.
Because of the historical interest? That's a good point, and perhaps
I was too hasty. Sorry.
Andrew.
On Sun, 2 Oct 2016, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Things we may want to remove:
>
> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
I have taken care of these (patch_tester.sh to follow shortly)...
> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles
In my opinion, all/most of these should be restored.
On 01/22/2017 08:51 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
Note I did not include all the removed java/* contents. Is there
anything particular you'd like to retain there?
No, please delete it all.
Okay, so I (
And here is more or less the last patch in this series, removing
java/libgcj2.html and two images (gcj.jpg and swingshot.png).
The only thing left in wwwdocs is a potential merge of java/news.html
into our general news.html that I am considering. That'd take a bit
more time, and I'll see whether
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Note I did not include all the removed java/* contents. Is there
>> anything particular you'd like to retain there?
> No, please delete it all.
Okay, so I (finally) went ahead and removed all of java/papers:
cvs commit: Examining java/papers
cvs commit
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 18:20 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 06:10 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > r242985 seems to have broken the build, for me at least (with
> > texinfo
> > 5.1):
> >
> > ../../src/gcc/doc/install.texi:2199: use braces to give a command
> > as an argu
On 11/29/2016 06:10 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
[snip]
r242985 seems to have broken the build, for me at least (with texinfo
5.1):
../../src/gcc/doc/install.texi:2199: use braces to give a command as an
argument to @=
make[2]: *** [doc/gccinstall.info] Error 1
The attached patch fixes it.
OK to
On Tue, 2016-11-29 at 14:23 -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 04:23 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 21.11.2016 18:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > > Hi Matthias,
> > >
> > > > ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now fixed, is this clearer now?
> > > >
> > > > The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include
On 11/21/2016 04:23 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.11.2016 18:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Matthias,
ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now fixed, is this clearer now?
The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} and
@option{--with-target-bdw-gc-lib} must always specified together for
On 11/21/2016 04:23 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.11.2016 18:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Matthias,
ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now fixed, is this clearer now?
The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} and
@option{--with-target-bdw-gc-lib} must always specified together for
On 21.11.2016 18:16, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
>> ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now fixed, is this clearer now?
>>
>> The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} and
>> @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-lib} must always specified together for
>
Hi Matthias,
> ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now fixed, is this clearer now?
>
> The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} and
> @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-lib} must always specified together for
^ be
Rainer
--
On 11/21/16 10:40 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.11.2016 17:23, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/21/2016 05:57 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm sure you didn't mean exactly the same --with-foo in all 3 places, but I'm a
dummy about what you really intended to say here.
ahh, didn't see that :-/ Now
On 21.11.2016 17:23, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 05:57 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> --with-target-bdw-gc=/opt/bdw-gc,32=/opt/bdw-gc32
>>
>> sets the include and lib dirs by appending include and lib to the paths. If
>> you
>> have options --with-target-bdw-gc-include= and --with-tar
On 11/21/2016 05:57 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
--with-target-bdw-gc=/opt/bdw-gc,32=/opt/bdw-gc32
sets the include and lib dirs by appending include and lib to the paths. If you
have options --with-target-bdw-gc-include= and --with-target-bdw-gc-lib= as
well, it overrides the settings done in --w
On 21.11.2016 11:23, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 20 Nov 2016, at 20:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> On 10.10.2016 09:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
>
>>> The point here was to simplify the dependent configury so that it only
>>> needs to test something that the configuring user specifies (i.e. if th
> On 20 Nov 2016, at 20:42, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 10.10.2016 09:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>> The point here was to simplify the dependent configury so that it only needs
>> to test something that the configuring user specifies (i.e. if they specify
>> objc-gc, then they need also to s
On 11/20/2016 01:42 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
+The options @option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} and
+@option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include} must always specified together for
+each multilib variant and take precedence over
+@option{--with-target-bdw-gc-include}. If none of these options are
+sp
On 10.10.2016 09:58, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 10 Oct 2016, at 05:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> On 07.10.2016 10:30, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
On 7 Oct 2016, at 00:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 06.10.2016 20:00, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 09:07:42AM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > Things we may want to remove:
> >
> > - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> > patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
> > - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
> > - LIBGCJ_S
> Things we may want to remove:
>
> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
> - LIBGCJ_SONAME in config/i386/{cygwin.h,mingw32.h}
> - references to java in install.
> Things we may want to remove:
>
> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
> - LIBGCJ_SONAME in config/i386/{cygwin.h,mingw32.h}
> - references to java in install.
> On 10 Oct 2016, at 05:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 07.10.2016 10:30, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 00:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06.10.2016 20:00, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> I wouldn't hard-fail, but complet
On 07.10.2016 10:30, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 7 Oct 2016, at 00:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>
>> On 06.10.2016 20:00, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth
>>> wrote:
I wouldn't hard-fail, but completely disable objc-gc with an appropriate
warning. The Object
> On 7 Oct 2016, at 00:58, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> On 06.10.2016 20:00, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth
>> wrote:
>>> I wouldn't hard-fail, but completely disable objc-gc with an appropriate
>>> warning. The Objective-C maintainers may have other preferences, th
On 06.10.2016 20:00, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> I wouldn't hard-fail, but completely disable objc-gc with an appropriate
>> warning. The Objective-C maintainers may have other preferences, though.
I think I can't do that in the top level make file very
On Oct 6, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> I wouldn't hard-fail, but completely disable objc-gc with an appropriate
> warning. The Objective-C maintainers may have other preferences, though.
gcc historically is fairly weak at complex configurations. I need the 32 bit
libraries to support
> On 6 Oct 2016, at 17:56, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
this assumption may not hold, though: in Solaris 11+ where libgc is
bundled, both 32 and 64-bit libs are present, as always. I'd also claim
that for multilib testing in general, it's bad to test different
multilibs with differ
Hi Matthias,
>>> this assumption may not hold, though: in Solaris 11+ where libgc is
>>> bundled, both 32 and 64-bit libs are present, as always. I'd also claim
>>> that for multilib testing in general, it's bad to test different
>>> multilibs with different configurations, so I'd rather have peo
On 06.10.2016 18:46, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> On 6 Oct 2016, at 17:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>
Here's what I tested. This requires a boehm-gc version 7.0 or later
(having the
header files in a gc subdirectory). Depending on your available library,
it
only builds the GC
> On 6 Oct 2016, at 17:42, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
>>> Here's what I tested. This requires a boehm-gc version 7.0 or later
>>> (having the
>>> header files in a gc subdirectory). Depending on your available library, it
>>> only builds the GC enabled library for the default multilib library, and
Hi Matthias,
>> Here's what I tested. This requires a boehm-gc version 7.0 or later
>> (having the
>> header files in a gc subdirectory). Depending on your available library, it
>> only builds the GC enabled library for the default multilib library, and just
>> skips over building the non-default
On 06.10.2016 18:14, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05.10.2016 18:28, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 10/04/2016 12:39 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
I don't know who wants to review it, but if people want me to, Ok. The
idea
is that if ObjC is the last remaining user in tree for boehm-gc, then
>>>
On 10/04/2016 12:39 PM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
I don't know who wants to review it, but if people want me to, Ok. The idea is
that if ObjC is the last remaining user in tree for boehm-gc, then reasonably
I'm the last man standing. Of course, if others want to review approve the
patch, I'm fine
On 10/05/2016 03:07 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
FAIL: g++.dg/pr49847-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20161005/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49847-2.C:5:13: error:
'__java_int' does not name a t
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:04:05AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> FAIL: g++.dg/pr49847-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20161005/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49847-2.C:5:13: error:
> '__java_int' does not name a type
> /daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20161005/gcc
FAIL: g++.dg/pr49847-2.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20161005/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49847-2.C:5:13: error:
'__java_int' does not name a type
/daten/aranym/gcc/gcc-20161005/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pr49847-2.C:6:13: error:
'__java_float' does not name a
> On 4 Oct 2016, at 18:23, Mike Stump wrote:
>
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>
On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one
On Oct 4, 2016, at 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>>
>>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the
OK.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 03:27:09PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Things we may want to remove:
>>
>> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
>> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
>> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_
On 04/10/16 09:39, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
>> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
>>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tr
Hi Matthias,
> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
>> is at svn+ssh://gcc.
On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/bran
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 03:27:09PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Things we may want to remove:
>
> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
> - LIBGCJ_SONAME in con
On 02/10/16 14:27, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Things we may want to remove:
>
> - references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
> patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
> - GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
> - LIBGCJ_SONAME in config/i386/{cygwin.h,ming
Things we may want to remove:
- references to java in contrib (download_ecj, gcc_update,
patch_tester.sh, update-copyright.py)
- GCJ, GCJ_FOR_BUILD, GCJ_FOR_TARGET in Makefiles.tpl and configure.ac
- LIBGCJ_SONAME in config/i386/{cygwin.h,mingw32.h}
- references to java in install.texi
Andreas.
On 05/09/16 17:25, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> And here is the patch for the web pages.
>
> Note I did not include all the removed java/* contents. Is there
> anything particular you'd like to retain there?
No, please delete it all.
Thanks,
Andrew.
On 30/09/16 11:27, Marek Polacek wrote:
> Can we move forward with this patch, then?
I've been travelling for several weeks. However, I'm back at my desk
now, so I can move this forward. I have all the approvals and
everybody has had time to respond. However, I'll need to pull some
more recent
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 01:08:56PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 10/09/16 12:59, NightStrike wrote:
> > Could we at least reach out and see if there's someone else who could
> > be the maintainer? I noticed gcj patches recently, so there's still
> > interest.
>
> 1. It's too late. We have bee
On 10/09/16 12:59, NightStrike wrote:
> Could we at least reach out and see if there's someone else who could
> be the maintainer? I noticed gcj patches recently, so there's still
> interest.
1. It's too late. We have been discussing this for a long time, and
we're now doing what we decided.
2
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:06 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley
>>> wrote:
As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve th
On 06/09/16 22:17, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 03:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:06:36AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
> On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00
On 09/06/2016 03:08 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:06:36AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
As discussed. I think I s
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:06:36AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley
> >> wrote:
> >>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:17 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley
>> wrote:
>>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs
On 9/5/16, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> > one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> > gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletio
On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/
On 9/5/16, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
>> i
On 9/5/16, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
>>
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branc
On 05/09/16 17:15, Richard Biener wrote:
> On September 5, 2016 5:13:06 PM GMT+02:00, Andrew Haley
> wrote:
>> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
>> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
>> gcc/java and libjava directories. The w
Andrew Haley writes:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion, is
> at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcj/gcj-deleti
On 05/09/16 16:29, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Please consider removing boehm-gc as well. The only other user is
> --enable-objc-gc, which better should use an external boehm-gc.
I can do that, but I do not want to do so with this patch.
Andrew.
On 05.09.2016 17:13, Andrew Haley wrote:
> As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
> one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
> gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
> is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/bran
As discussed. I think I should ask a Global reviewer to approve this
one. For obvious reasons I haven't included the diffs to the deleted
gcc/java and libjava directories. The whole tree, post GCJ-deletion,
is at svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcj/gcj-deletion-branch
if anyone would like
71 matches
Mail list logo
