On Sat, 27 Nov 2021, Petter Tomner wrote:
> Ye it is supposed to compile cleanly for 32bit too.
>
> I pushed a patch for it as a "free for all". With %zu specifiers.
Thank you, Petter. I just updated the lang/gcc12-devel port in FreeBSD
to Sunday's snapshot that has those changes, so we shall l
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> I have received a report of GCC builds now failing on FreeBSD/i386:
Ah, and here are the logs (IPv6 required, unfortunately):
Log URL:
http://beefy5.nyi.freebsd.org/data/122i386-default/9e1bda400030/logs/gcc12-devel-12.0.0.s20211121.log
Build URL:
http
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021, David Malcolm via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 20:53 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
>> I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
>> gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was called on a type different
>> than a function pointer type).
> The updated patc
On Mon, 2021-09-27 at 20:53 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
> gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was called on a type different
> than a function pointer type).
>
> Here's the updated patch.
Sorry about the delay in responding.
The updated
David: PING
Le mardi 12 octobre 2021 à 22:09 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> David: PING
>
> Le lundi 27 septembre 2021 à 20:53 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> > I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
> > gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was called on a type
> > different
via Jit; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Ämne: Re: [PATCH] libgccjit: add some reflection functions in the jit C api
David: PING
Le lundi 27 septembre 2021 à 20:53 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
> gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was
David: PING
Le lundi 27 septembre 2021 à 20:53 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
> gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was called on a type different
> than a function pointer type).
>
> Here's the updated patch.
>
> Le vendredi 18 juin 20
I fixed an issue (it would show an error message when
gcc_jit_type_dyncast_function_ptr_type was called on a type different
than a function pointer type).
Here's the updated patch.
Le vendredi 18 juin 2021 à 16:37 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 15:41 -0400, Antoni Boucher
David: PING
Le jeudi 29 juillet 2021 à 08:59 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> David: PING
>
> Le lundi 19 juillet 2021 à 12:10 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> > I'm sending the patch once again for review/approval.
> >
> > I fixed the doc to use the new function names.
> >
> > Le vendredi 18
David: PING
Le lundi 19 juillet 2021 à 12:10 -0400, Antoni Boucher a écrit :
> I'm sending the patch once again for review/approval.
>
> I fixed the doc to use the new function names.
>
> Le vendredi 18 juin 2021 à 16:37 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 15:41 -0400, Anton
I'm sending the patch once again for review/approval.
I fixed the doc to use the new function names.
Le vendredi 18 juin 2021 à 16:37 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 15:41 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > I have write access now.
>
> Great.
>
> > I'm not sure how I'm supp
On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 15:41 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> I have write access now.
Great.
> I'm not sure how I'm supposed to send my patches:
> should I put it in personal branches and you'll merge them?
Please send them to this mailing list for review; once they're approved
you can merge them.
I have write access now.
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to send my patches:
should I put it in personal branches and you'll merge them?
And for the MAINTAINERS file, should I just push to master right away,
after sending it to the mailing list?
Thanks for your help!
Le vendredi 18 juin 2021 à 12:
On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 11:55 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Le vendredi 11 juin 2021 à 14:00 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 08:15 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > Thank you for your answer.
> > > I attached the updated patch.
> >
> > BTW you (or possibly me) dropped the
Le vendredi 11 juin 2021 à 14:00 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Fri, 2021-06-11 at 08:15 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > Thank you for your answer.
> > I attached the updated patch.
>
> BTW you (or possibly me) dropped the mailing lists; was that
> deliberate?
Oh, my bad.
> >
> > See my a
On Thu, 2021-05-27 at 21:51 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> I chose option A, so everything is a size_t, now.
> I also renamed the dyncast functions.
> Here's the new patch.
Thanks, sorry again about the delays in reviewing your work.
You didn't specify how you tested the patch; are you running th
I chose option A, so everything is a size_t, now.
I also renamed the dyncast functions.
Here's the new patch.
Le jeudi 27 mai 2021 à 18:19 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 20:19 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > @David: PING
> >
> > As far as I know, the only remaining questi
On Tue, 2021-05-25 at 20:19 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> @David: PING
>
> As far as I know, the only remaining question is about using
> `ssize_t`
> for the return type of some functions.
> Here's why I use this type:
>
> That seemed off to return NULL for the functions returning a
> size_t to
@David: PING
As far as I know, the only remaining question is about using `ssize_t`
for the return type of some functions.
Here's why I use this type:
That seemed off to return NULL for the functions returning a
size_t to indicate an error. So I changed it to return -1 (and return
type to ssize_
Thanks for your reviews.
I attached the new patch to this email.
See answers below:
Le jeudi 13 mai 2021 à 17:30 -0400, David Malcolm a écrit :
> On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > I was missing a check in gcc_jit_struct_get_field, I added it in
> > this
> > new patch.
On Tue, 2020-11-03 at 17:13 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> I was missing a check in gcc_jit_struct_get_field, I added it in this
> new patch.
>
Sorry about the long delay in reviewing this patch.
The main high-level points are:
- currently the get_*_count functions return "ssize_t" - why? Only
@David: PING
On 11/3/20 11:13 PM, Antoni Boucher via Gcc-patches wrote:
I was missing a check in gcc_jit_struct_get_field, I added it in this new patch.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:52:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 13:39 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
Thanks. I updated th
I was missing a check in gcc_jit_struct_get_field, I added it in this
new patch.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:52:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 13:39 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
Thanks. I updated the patch with these changes.
Thanks for patch; review below. Sorry if i
Hi.
Thanks for the review. See the comments below.
I attached the updated patch.
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 05:52:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 13:39 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
Thanks. I updated the patch with these changes.
Thanks for patch; review below. Sorry if it
On Thu, 2020-10-15 at 13:39 -0400, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> Thanks. I updated the patch with these changes.
Thanks for patch; review below. Sorry if it seems excessively nitpicky
in places.
> 2020-09-1 Antoni Boucher
>
> gcc/jit/
> PR target/96889
> * docs/topics/c
Antoni Boucher writes:
> Thanks. I updated the patch with these changes.
>
> Is there any tool to automatically check the style?
Yes, we have in contrib check_GNU_style.sh and check_GNU_style.py.
Andrea
Thanks. I updated the patch with these changes.
Is there any tool to automatically check the style?
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 06:23:18PM +0200, Andrea Corallo wrote:
Antoni Boucher via Jit writes:
Hi Antoni,
Just had a quick look, please find some quite minor comments in line.
From b0edc9eb8
Antoni Boucher via Jit writes:
Hi Antoni,
Just had a quick look, please find some quite minor comments in line.
> From b0edc9eb8e8d3ba9e1c6a8d061a8627c0b0cf102 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Antoni Boucher
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 17:52:17 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] This patch add some reflecti
Hi.
I added all the functions I need in this new patch.
Please tell me if that looks good and I'll add documentation for those
functions.
Thanks.
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:24:26PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 16:17 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01
By the way, that seemed off to return NULL for the function returning a
size_t to indicate an error. So I changed it to return -1 (and return
type to ssize_t). Is that the proper way to indicate an error?
I also wanted to mention that this patch is still a work-in-progress as
I'm adding a few
Hi.
Thanks for the review.
I attached the updated patch file.
I don't have a copyright assignment, but I'll look at that.
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:24:26PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 16:17 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01 -0400, Antoni Boucher via
On Fri, 2020-10-02 at 16:17 -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01 -0400, Antoni Boucher via Jit wrote:
> > Hello.
> > This WIP patch implements new reflection functions in the C API as
> > mentioned in bug 96889.
> > I'm looking forward for feedbacks on this patch.
> > It's WIP
On Tue, 2020-09-01 at 21:01 -0400, Antoni Boucher via Jit wrote:
> Hello.
> This WIP patch implements new reflection functions in the C API as
> mentioned in bug 96889.
> I'm looking forward for feedbacks on this patch.
> It's WIP because I'll probably add a few more reflection functions.
> Thanks
Hello.
This WIP patch implements new reflection functions in the C API as
mentioned in bug 96889.
I'm looking forward for feedbacks on this patch.
It's WIP because I'll probably add a few more reflection functions.
Thanks.
>From 23ab738c0d9202f6798a38fb4aa15edfcc67d11c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
F
34 matches
Mail list logo
