2010/8/23, Pierre Habouzit :
> It's just that LTO isn't that a compelling reason, it's not 100%
> production ready. The plugin infrastructure is though. But you're citing
> dragonegg, and last time I checked, you had to patch gcc to export one
> more symbol. If you haven't applied that patch (if it
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:05:25PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>>On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 02:02:35PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 23.08.2010 13:21, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >>>
> >
On 23.08.2010 13:30, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clea
On 23.08.2010 13:21, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a c
On 23.08.2010 13:45, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:45:35PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loir
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 10:03:05AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> > >
> > >>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> > >
> > >>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gc
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >
> >>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
> >>There is a complete list here [0], but those
On 23.08.2010 12:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:41:40AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 23.08.2010 10:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Ar
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:41:40AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 23.08.2010 10:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >>>
> N
On 23.08.2010 10:03, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a compl
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:05:32AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >
> >>Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
> >>There is a complete list here [0], but those
On 21.08.2010 14:56, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are, in my opinion,
very nice:
- The new link time optimiser.
- Impr
On 20.08.2010 23:18, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
gcc-4.5 is not stable:
wrong.
> it is in experimental and has not even reached unstable yet.
yes, exactly. that's because some member of the *release team* asked about it at
Debconf privately, before declaring the freeze publically.
gcc-4.4 is st
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 19:33:12 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> Now, to be clear, what nice things would gcc-4.5 bring to our users?
> There is a complete list here [0], but those ones are, in my opinion,
> very nice:
> - The new link time optimiser.
> - Improved C++0x support.
> - Plugins suppo
2010/8/20, Ludovic Brenta :
> Arthur Loiret writes:
>> Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not
>> suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable
>> for active development?
>
> I think he meant that stable is not the place for active developmen
Arthur Loiret writes:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/8/20, Neil McGovern :
>> I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development.
>
> Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not
> suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable
> for active dev
Hello,
2010/8/20, Neil McGovern :
> I don't think that stable is the place for doing active development.
Are you saying that we are developing an operating system which is not
suitable for active development, or that it shouldn't be made suitable
for active development?
If it's the former, I thi
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:07:46 +0200
Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34:51 (CEST), Neil McGovern wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >> >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater
> >> >optimisation level certai
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34:51 (CEST), Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater
>> >optimisation level certainly aren't things which will solve specific
>> >problems. Could you hig
Hello,
Sorry for cross-posting if not appropriate, I'm just preserving the e-mail
headers.
On Friday 20 August 2010 11:34:51 Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater
> > >optimisa
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 05:17:32PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >I'm not sure there are any in the original, plugins and a greater
> >optimisation level certainly aren't things which will solve specific
> >problems. Could you highlight them for me?
>
> Having these features available for develop
On 2010-08-18 19:49 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 19:12:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd be comfortable with gcc-4.5 in Squeeze except for this
>> part:
>>
>> > - the upload will build several runtime libraries from the 4.5
>> > sources. Regression
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 19:12:37 +0200, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Personally, I'd be comfortable with gcc-4.5 in Squeeze except for this
> part:
>
> > - the upload will build several runtime libraries from the 4.5
> > sources. Regression tests did pass for the runtime libs built
> > from the 4
Personally, I'd be comfortable with gcc-4.5 in Squeeze except for this
part:
> - the upload will build several runtime libraries from the 4.5
> sources. Regression tests did pass for the runtime libs built
> from the 4.5 sources and for 4.4 using the runtime libs from
> 4.5.
This really gi
On 18.08.2010 16:36, Neil McGovern wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:36:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 11.08.2010 23:16, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi Matthias,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
gcc-4.5 should be release
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:36:34PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 11.08.2010 23:16, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >Hi Matthias,
> >
> >Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
> >
> >On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>gcc-4.5 should be released with squeeze, at least o
On 11.08.2010 23:16, Neil McGovern wrote:
Hi Matthias,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
gcc-4.5 should be released with squeeze, at least on amd64 and i386.
gcc-4.5.1 was released a week ago, the first bug and regression
Hi Matthias,
Sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 11:42:42PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> gcc-4.5 should be released with squeeze, at least on amd64 and i386.
> gcc-4.5.1 was released a week ago, the first bug and regression fix
> release after the initial gcc-4.5.0
These packages were prepared before the announcement of the freeze, but not
uploaded by request of the release team.
gcc-4.5 should be released with squeeze, at least on amd64 and i386. gcc-4.5.1
was released a week ago, the first bug and regression fix release after the
initial gcc-4.5.0 rele
33 matches
Mail list logo
