RE: What are the differences between 2.95.3 and 3.2.3?
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/features.html http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/caveats.html http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.1/changes.html http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html Regards, Ryan Mansfield -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pascal Aschwanden Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: What are the differences between 2.95.3 and 3.2.3? thanks, Pascal
[lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? Regards, Ryan Mansfield
Re: [lto] Reader-writer compatibility?
Diego Novillo wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42, Ryan Mansfield wrote: Is it required that the same compiler that generated lto objects be used to read them? I've come across a couple ICEs with the current revision reading lto objects created by a slightly older version but same configuration. Is this simply invalid usage of my part? It's likely. How much drift between the two revisions? Can you recreate the ICE if you write and read with the exact same revision? If so, please file a bug. The objects were created with rev 15 and being read using 151271. No, I can't reproduce the ICE using the same version. Thanks for confirming this is not expected to work. Regards, Ryan Mansfield
Re: Add my name to Write-after-Approval List
Paolo Bonzini wrote: 4) some might fall under 2 or 3. Actually just one; he used to be at QNX, couldn't find any data after 2005 on qnx.com but I'm CCing him: >gp (Graeme Peterson )2003-08-063 Graeme left QNX back in 2006. He removed himself from the MAINTAINERS file: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-08/msg00513.html Regards, Ryan Mansfield
Re: GCC 4.4.2 Status Report (2009-10-15)
Jakub Jelinek wrote: Status == GCC 4.4.2 release tarballs have been uploaded, the 4.4 branch is again open for commits under the usual release branch rules. I'll announce the release once mirrors had some time to download it. The onlinedocs already point to 4.4.2 but there is a permission issue accessing onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.2/gcc/ (i.e. 403) Regards, Ryan Mansfield
RE: C++, export for templates (was: C++ standard)
> Couldn't find anything on it in bugzilla, and I don't think it's worth > the effort. IIRC, Herb Sutter and another guy spent 6 months to get it > right in the EDG front end (and Herb originally wanted to throw export > for templates out of the standard alltogether). > > -- > Tarjei The implementation of export was done by Steve Adamczyk, John Spicer, and Daveed Vandevoorde - also known as Edison Design Group (EDG). Herb Sutter and Tom Plum wrote a committee paper entitled "Why We Can't Afford Export" [1]. The paper points out that it took EDG 1.5 years of planning and 3 person years to implement export. EDG estimates elapsed time for other implementers approximately 2.5 to 3 years, start to finish. [1] http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1426.pdf Regards, Ryan Mansfield
RE: C++, export for templates (was: C++ standard)
> and that paper was debunked when it was presented at the ISO C++ > committee in April 2003 at Oxford, UK. EDG is very willing to give > advice (based on their experience) to anyone interested in > implementing export in, say GCC. (They want to see the best > implementation of export for C++.) > > -- Gaby Well, my point was that Herb Sutter had just written a paper on it, and it was the EDG guys who had done the implementation. Even though Sutter's paper was debunked, do EDG no longer stand behind their 2.5-3yr estimate? Regards, Ryan Mansfield
gcc 4.8.2 online docs broken
A number of the links in 4.8.2 docs are broken (trunk seem to be OK). http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/4.8.2/gcc/ has 404s for the following: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/i386-and-x86-64-Options.html#i386-and-x86-64-Options http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/IA-64-Options.html#IA-64-Options http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/PDP-11-Options.html#PDP-11-Options http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/TILE-Gx-Options.html#TILE-Gx-Options http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/Conditionally-supported-behavior.html#Conditionally-supported-behavior The w3c validator page says there's 54 broken links. It looks like anything with a "-" in the URL is affected. Regards, Ryan Mansfield
Re: GCC 4.3 target deprecation proposals
Joseph S. Myers wrote: Following my proposal for target architecture deprecations in 4.3 <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-01/msg00335.html>, I now propose the following list of individual targets to deprecate, based on the same methodology previously described. The patch to remove c4x and deprecate the previously discussed target architectures crx, iq2000, mt, stormy16 will be submitted shortly; the patch for the remaining deprecations (only touching config.gcc and the release notes) will be submitted later after any discussion. * i[34567]86-*-nto-qnx* Please do not deprecated this target. We intend to update this target and post test results in the very near future. Regards, Ryan Mansfield
