Re: GNU Pascal branch

2006-04-02 Thread Paolo Bonzini
The fact is, that the GNU Pascal crew did not want integration with gcc the last time this was discussed. GCC, the project, can not just suck in every front end out there if the maintainers of that front end do not want that. Apparently, the GNU Pascal crew did not want integration with every

Re: GNU Pascal branch

2006-04-02 Thread Adriaan van Os
Steven Bosscher wrote: Ed Smith-Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: All, FWIW, I would like to add my support for creating a branch for gpc with the eventual goal of integrating Pascal into mainline. While I agree with most of the the points you make, the issue is not whether GCC should all

Re: the loss of SET_TYPE

2006-04-02 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Steven Bosscher wrote: > That would be up to the Steering Committee, I suppose. Gerald? Yes, as Mark noted in a related thread, this would be the case. Note that it's not only about technical issues, copyright assignment, and coding standards. Adding and especially carrying

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Roger Sayle wrote: > As a step in this direction, the patch below removes the > TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW checks from integer_zerop, integer_onep, Has there been a patch to the C++ front end corresponding to my patch to t

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Roger Sayle
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > 2006-04-01 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * tree.c (integer_zerop): Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW. > > [...] > > (int_size_in_bytes): Likewise. > > (host_integerp): Likewise. > > Is this an oversight? Doh. Indeed. The las

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Eric Botcazou
> 2006-04-01 Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * tree.c (integer_zerop): Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW. > [...] > (int_size_in_bytes): Likewise. > (host_integerp): Likewise. Is this an oversight? *** int_size_in_bytes (tree type) *** 1725,1731 t =

Re: GNU Pascal branch

2006-04-02 Thread Steven Bosscher
On 4/1/06, Ed Smith-Rowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > FWIW, I would like to add my support for creating a branch for gpc with > the eventual goal > of integrating Pascal into mainline. While I agree with most of the the points you make, the issue is not whether GCC should allow a gpc-b

Re: [RFC] Ignore TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW in integer_zerop

2006-04-02 Thread Falk Hueffner
Roger Sayle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] the patch below removes the TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW checks from > integer_zerop, integer_onep, and friends in tree.c. Incidentally, this fixes PR 26729. -- Falk