> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 05:25:54PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> At Cygnus, in the early and mid- 90s, we did this routinely, starting
>> with the native compilers shipped with various Unix variants. As Unix
>> variants generally no longer come with a free (as in beer) compiler
>> other
> "Dave" == Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 13 August 2007 22:16, David Orchard wrote:
>> Some base classes (specifically thread base classes) would benefit from
>> being able to execute a function after the object is constructed and before
>> it is destructed. For a thread class t
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Index: fixincludes/configure.ac
> ===
> --- fixincludes/configure.ac (revision 127373)
> +++ fixincludes/configure.ac (working copy)
> @@ -5,6 +5,15 @@
> AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR(..)
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> are gimplify.c for all the conversion to GIMPLE, tree-cfg.c for the
> building of the CFG and omp-low.c for the conversion into Low
> GIMPLE.
Actually, gimple-low.c. omp-low.c is only for the OpenMP lowering.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 05:25:54PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> At Cygnus, in the early and mid- 90s, we did this routinely, starting
> with the native compilers shipped with various Unix variants. As Unix
> variants generally no longer come with a free (as in beer) compiler
> other than gc
Jan Hubicka wrote:
> One thing I would like to see in is the sharing checker. The criteria
> of bootstrap/regtesting on primary platforms is almost met now with
> exception of regmove pass that I sent patch for some time ago.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg01441.html
> I will do r
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 10:26:57AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> Is there a particular reason for x86 and x86-64 global-dynamic TLS
> model to require @PLT when calling __tls_get_addr when PIC isn't
> required? See
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4918
>
> Right now, gcc doesn't g
Hi,
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Recently I have tried to run Spec2000 fortran benchmarks with
> > -fwhole-program and -combine flags. It looks like there was no effect
> > of really combining files into one program, i.e. they are processed
> > separately at ipa level.
> >
> >
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > This is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw for gcj on ARM.
> >
> > Unwind_Backtrace is not defined in the ARM exception handling spec at
> > http://www.arm.com/pdfs/ehabi.pdf, but it can be impleme
On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 03:31:58PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> This is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw for gcj on ARM.
>
> Unwind_Backtrace is not defined in the ARM exception handling spec at
> http://www.arm.com/pdfs/ehabi.pdf, but it can be implemented by
> performing Phase 1 of a forced
On 14 August 2007 15:54, DJ Delorie wrote:
> The FSF has asked us to not directly support any ports to SCO.
>
> See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/
>
> That request has not yet been rescinded.
But consider also
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/README.SCO
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't t
The FSF has asked us to not directly support any ports to SCO.
See http://www.fsf.org/licensing/sco/
That request has not yet been rescinded.
This is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw for gcj on ARM.
Unwind_Backtrace is not defined in the ARM exception handling spec at
http://www.arm.com/pdfs/ehabi.pdf, but it can be implemented by
performing Phase 1 of a forced unwind, calling the trace function as
we go. This works for gcj, which
Hello,
Don't ask me why I did this but.
I would like to report that the version of gcc 2.95, available at
ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/osr5/devtools/gcc/
designed for SCO osr5 will install on SCO osr6 and it works to the
extent I have tested it.
I compiled and installed joe source w
>
> Summary
> ---
>
> We entered Stage 2 on July 6th. I plan to put us into Stage 3 on
> September 10th. At that point, we will accept only bug-fixes -- no
> more new features until Stage 1 for GCC 4.4.
>
> Are there any folks out there who have projects for Stage 1 or Stage 2
> that they
On 13 August 2007 22:16, David Orchard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some base classes (specifically thread base classes) would benefit from
> being able to execute a function after the object is constructed and before
> it is destructed. For a thread class the thread can't start until after the
> object
16 matches
Mail list logo
