On Tue, 28 Feb 2017, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> And one question: "declaration linking" is used in the description
>> of Link-time optimization improvements, alas that string does not
>> appear anywhere in either the source tree or documentation?
> It is my own name indeed. lto-symtab.c does merge
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > this is updated patch. I tried to explain better the situation WRT
> > incremental linking.
>
> Thank you, Jan. I had a couple of editorial changes on top of
> this, which I finally managed to commit. (See the patch below.)
>
> And one question:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> this is updated patch. I tried to explain better the situation WRT
> incremental linking.
Thank you, Jan. I had a couple of editorial changes on top of
this, which I finally managed to commit. (See the patch below.)
And one question: "declaration
On 19/01/16 16:45 +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Index: changes.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/gcc-6/changes.html,v
retrieving revision 1.46
diff -u -r1.46 changes.html
--- changes.html22 Dec 2015 19:23:31 -
> >+ is not performed. GCC 7 will support incremental IL linking.
>
> "IL" again what does this mean to users?
Thanks for corrections, I will apply them and post updated patch. Here I
wanted to explain that gcc -r should now give a correct code (while with
earlier GCC releases it will
On 01/19/2016 08:45 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Hi,
this patch mentiones few user visible changes I can think of. I will
add some quality data on firefox once stage3 closes.
It seems that the optimization section of changes.html deserve some work :)
Honza
Index: changes.html
On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:04:48PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
Ok to commit?
as maintainer I am happy for you to commit documentation/web changes
without approval, though I am also happy to review.
I was hoping you could glance over
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
Is the following any better? Thanks,
Yes, this looks fine.
(I admit that flexible array member-like arrays confused me a bit,
but that's probably me not fully getting standards language. ;-)
Gerald
Hi Marek,
On Mon, 11 May 2015, Marek Polacek wrote:
Ok to commit?
as maintainer I am happy for you to commit documentation/web changes
without approval, though I am also happy to review.
+h2 id=generalGeneral Optimizer Improvements/h2
+ ul
+liUndefinedBehaviorSanitizer gained a new
On Wed, 8 Apr 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The only drawback of this, and some similar cases, is that we now
risk referring to older versions on a release branch.
Yes, I realised that problem when making the change and linking to the
versions that were current at the time. One option would be
On 09 Apr 12:32, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
This adds Pointer Bounds Checker and MPX support to GCC 5 changes.
Is it OK?
Nice, thank you!
Can you just replace runtime checks by run-time checks and
IA-32/x86-64 GNU/Linux target by x86/x86-64
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
This adds Pointer Bounds Checker and MPX support to GCC 5 changes.
Is it OK?
Nice, thank you!
Can you just replace runtime checks by run-time checks and
IA-32/x86-64 GNU/Linux target by x86/x86-64 GNU/Linux targets
(x86, as we had agreed upon recently,
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
This adds recent libstdc++ updates to gcc-5/changes.html
Nice! Just a most minor change to end a list with a full stop
instead of a semi-colon. Applied.
Gerald
Index: changes.html
On 08/04/15 13:06 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm also noting one old change in the GCC 4.5 page, and
removing/changing some links to the C++0x status table. The list of
features supported on trunk is fairly irrelevant to someone looking at
the 4.4
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I'm also noting one old change in the GCC 4.5 page, and
removing/changing some links to the C++0x status table. The list of
features supported on trunk is fairly irrelevant to someone looking at
the 4.4 release notes, so I've linked to the docs for
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com wrote:
A trivial patch to document that the C default has been changed.
This should be also mentioned at the toplevel Caveats section.
Richard.
Applying.
Index: changes.html
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:50:55PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com wrote:
A trivial patch to document that the C default has been changed.
This should be also mentioned at the toplevel Caveats section.
And porting_to.html.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:50:55PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Marek Polacek pola...@redhat.com wrote:
A trivial patch to document that the C default has been changed.
This should be also mentioned at the toplevel Caveats section.
Ok, I'll commit the
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:41PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
And porting_to.html.
I plan to prepare porting to this week.
Marek
19 matches
Mail list logo
