On Sep 10, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I disagree. The copyright holder has decided that they want people to
> (among other things) allow people to distribute under GPLv2. We can't
> take that away without the permission of that holder.
Well, the words on their distribution say exa
> > The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
> > FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could
> > change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
> > license (we can for code that HAS been assigned).
>
> Ah, but the
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
> FSF wants "GPLv3 or later" and it's not at all clear to me that we could
> change the license of code that's not copyright assigned to FSF to that
> license (we can for cod
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 01:05:23AM +0200, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> Il 10/09/2010 19.31, Steve Kargl ha scritto:
> >The ideal solution would be incorporating libquad into libgfortran
>
> The ideal solution would be building GCC enabling QP with
>
> ./configure... --enable-quad
>
> if the syst
I don't know the answers to your specific questions, but I do know that
java questions might get faster response if cross posted to java@ (now
CCed).
David Daney
On 09/10/2010 03:50 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
Hello,
There is just one front-end file left that still has to #undef
IN_GCC_FRONT
Il 10/09/2010 19.31, Steve Kargl ha scritto:
The ideal solution would be incorporating libquad into libgfortran
The ideal solution would be building GCC enabling QP with
./configure... --enable-quad
if the system allow for QP: in this case, perhaps, QP should be enabled
by default.
Cia
Hello,
There is just one front-end file left that still has to #undef
IN_GCC_FRONTEND, allowing the front end to include RTL headers. The
one remaining file is java/builtins.c.
In java/builtins.c there are (what appear to be) functions that
generate code for Java builtins, and these functions loo
[licensing dealt with separately]
> > Variable: D.1093058884, UID D.1093058884, int_32gimple_default_def
> > 0x412130a8 1093058884
> This is clearly wrong, though I have no idea what caused it.
> > Is it valid for uids to be so high?
> No.
Thanks, that helps.
> From your description, you've
Er, As I understand, lack of a process boundary automatically implies GPL
"spread" through "linkage".
Assuming "linkage" means "ld". I'm not sure I've seen "linkage" defined.
However
if "linkage" or "derivation" includes "interaction via file or network I/O",
then a lot of folks will be
> The code in the apple branch on the fsf server *is* copyright assigned to
> the FSF.
Right. That's why a previous email in this thread said there was no
problem with them. I thought the remaining discussion was about
files in OTHER places.
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
>>
>> The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
>> take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
>
> The fact that the licenses are COMPA
> > I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
>
> The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to
> take that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
The fact that the licenses are COMPATIBLE doesn't make them IDENTICAL.
FSF wants "GPLv3 or later"
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Since you do have a test case, you could try using a tool like delta to reduce
> it to something that you can share.
My delta-fu is too weak to get anywhere with an error so easily
produced (mismatched prototype, plus g++ senseless diagnos
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 07:08:10PM +0200, FX wrote:
> I'm CC'ing the gcc list so I can get insight from people who understand
> correctly how static libraries should be handled by the driver...
>
> > I'm seeing a similar issue with -static linkage.
> >
> > % gfc4x -o z norm2_3.f90 -L/usr/home/sg
I'm CC'ing the gcc list so I can get insight from people who understand
correctly how static libraries should be handled by the driver...
> I'm seeing a similar issue with -static linkage.
>
> % gfc4x -o z norm2_3.f90 -L/usr/home/sgk/work/lib -lquad -static
OK, I see the same thing. It's due to
On Sep 10, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work as
CALL FOR PAPERS
3rd Workshop on
GCC Research Opportunities
(GROW 2011)
http://grow2
On Sep 10, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> More seriously, the issue is copyright law. In order to write a
> front-end for GCC right now (or for a GCC front end to use another
> backend), you have to use a sufficient number of header files and
> interfaces of GCC that there's no question
On Sep 10, 2010, at 4:52 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I thought the point is that Apple WON'T go to GPLv3.
The Apple distributions are GPLv2 or later, meaning if someone wanted to take
that code and distribute it under then GPLv3, they could.
> Is there a particular target you're interested in?
Not in that way, no. My biggest concern is that the documentation is
wrong. My second concern is that the help option says it basically
does nothing (well, one or two options) instead of the big list it
used to do (or that the other -O* do).
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
Although of course lower-subreg.c is RTL, so never mind. Sorry.
Ian
Andrew Pinski writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
>
> Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
I don't think so I used to use it in lower-subreg.c before the code
got tightened up
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Can't he just call find_many_sub_basic_blocks?
Are you teasing us with some RTL stuff that had been trying to remove?
-- Pinski
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
>>> ,
>>> | int f(int n)
>>> | {
>>> | switch(n)
>>> | {
>>
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
>> ,
>> | int f(int n)
>> | {
>> | switch(n)
>> | {
>> | case 0: f1("0"); break;
>> | case 500: f2("500"); break;
>>
On 10 September 2010 17:20, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> I understand what you are trying to do, but it's very unlikely that
> anybody will be able to solve this problem without a test case. Since
> you do have a test case, you could try using a tool like delta to reduce
> it to something that you
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
> ,
> | int f(int n)
> | {
> | switch(n)
> | {
> | case 0: f1("0"); break;
> | case 500: f2("500"); break;
> | case 1000: f3("1000"); break;
> |
Hello,
On my frontend pass, I am dealing with basic blocks and I am for:
,
| int f(int n)
| {
| switch(n)
| {
| case 0: f1("0"); break;
| case 500: f2("500"); break;
| case 1000: f3("1000"); break;
| default: d(); break;
| }
| }
`
transforming it into:
,
| int
tbp writes:
> Since about 2010/09/07 i've had a weird error with a mismatched
> prototype involving an argument once forward declared as 'class foo;'
> and later defined as 'class __attribute((aligned(16))) foo {...};', a
> bit like
> namespace n1 {
> class fwd;
> namespace n2 {
> class
On 9/10/2010 11:08 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jay K writes:
That uses process boundaries to avoid GPL crossing into BSDish licensed code.
So maybe you don't want to help me. Understood.
Note that different people have different opinions as to whether a
process boundary means that your code
Jay K writes:
> That uses process boundaries to avoid GPL crossing into BSDish licensed code.
> So maybe you don't want to help me. Understood.
Note that different people have different opinions as to whether a
process boundary means that your code is not a derived work. Not that
we should get
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>>
>> Or I could move the pass to be executed before the CFG is created. Would
>> there be any issues with this?
>
> Yes. Profile information is not available at that point.
>
Thanks. Makes sense if I intend to u
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>>
>> Which is wrong. You need to use block_stmt_iterator and
>> bsi_remove and ... (I don't remember, 4.3 is so old).
>>
>
> Or I could move the pass to be executed before the CFG is created. Would
> there be an
Richard Guenther writes:
>
> Which is wrong. You need to use block_stmt_iterator and
> bsi_remove and ... (I don't remember, 4.3 is so old).
>
Or I could move the pass to be executed before the CFG is created. Would
there be any issues with this?
Regarding passes execution order. It seems on o
On 10 September 2010 15:25, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>> On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
>> > front ends, back ends, and optimizers.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> May I ask why would GCC want clang as a frontend? Would it supersede the
> current C frontend?
I suppose not, but it could supersede the ObjC and ObjC++ front ends.
And from there -- who knows.
Ciao!
Steven
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
>
> Which is wrong. You need to use block_stmt_iterator and
> bsi_remove and ... (I don't remember, 4.3 is so old).
>
Thanks for the pointers. I will use those instead.
>
> You need to properly update the CFG
>
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Paulo J. Matos wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am working on the new pass (previously discussed), to optimise switch
> cases.
>
> I am almost finishing it, however, for practical reasons I am
> implementing it first over GCC4.3 and once tested, will port it to svn
> trunk an
Richard Guenther writes:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end.
>
> Oh,
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 03:09:02PM +0200, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner wrote:
> >
> > But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
> > front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
> > thing nor any scheme th
Hello,
I am working on the new pass (previously discussed), to optimise switch
cases.
I am almost finishing it, however, for practical reasons I am
implementing it first over GCC4.3 and once tested, will port it to svn
trunk and post it on gcc-patches.
There are something that are still not work
On 10 September 2010 15:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
>> wrote:
> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> proprietary front-ends or proprietary b
On 10 September 2010 15:00, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>>> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
>>> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>>>
>>> Why is this case different
On 10 September 2010 14:40, Richard Kenner wrote:
>
> But if this were done, then it would be trivial to have proprietary
> front ends, back ends, and optimizers. So RMS never allowed any such
> thing nor any scheme that resulted in having any file that could be
> used for such a purpose.
As far
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
>> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>>
>> Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
>
> It's the question of what o
> > Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> > proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GCC!
>
> Why is this case different from the existing llvm-gcc?
It's the question of what one means by "plug-in interface". If you
view it as no differe
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing th
On 10 September 2010 14:22, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> > Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "frontend plugins" possible
>> > and plugging clang.
>>
>> I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
>
> Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
> propri
> > Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "frontend plugins" possible
> > and plugging clang.
>
> I wonder what would actually be needed to implement this?
Some strong way of addressing the concern that this could be used to make
proprietary front-ends or proprietary back-ends using part of GC
On 10 September 2010 11:42, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher
> wrote:
>
>> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
>> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
>> some effort on making clang work a
> So is it Ok to import testcases (in this case, from Apple's own GCC)
> without a copyright assignment ? :-)
I see the smiley, but I'd say the serious answer to that is that it
might or might not be depending on what we knew about the copyright
status of that code.
If we knew (and this is the ha
Since about 2010/09/07 i've had a weird error with a mismatched
prototype involving an argument once forward declared as 'class foo;'
and later defined as 'class __attribute((aligned(16))) foo {...};', a
bit like
namespace n1 {
class fwd;
namespace n2 {
class foo {
void bar(fw
> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat. For GCC as a project it
> should matter that the code is distributable under GPLv3 which I think
> Apples change
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> * What standard is going to be implemented? ObjC 2.0 is not even a
> documented language standard, so you probably end up with something
> that is incompatible with Apple ObjC anyway. Without a documented
> standard, the only "standard" is the Apple co
So..we have a custom frontend.
That uses process boundaries to avoid GPL crossing into BSDish licensed code.
So maybe you don't want to help me. Understood.
But just in case:
We generate trees. Probably they aren't of great quality.
e.g. relatively devoid of types and do field accesses by offset
>> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
>> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
>> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
>
> That code is not part of the compiler proper. The policy has always
> been different for the test suites
Le 10. 09. 10 12:22, Richard Guenther a écrit :
> So - can you enumerate the customizations you didn't bring over?
I have no official list of customizations to port to the newer Bugzilla.
All I have in hands are the two patches attached to bug 43011, see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 09:50:26PM -0700, Kenny Simpson wrote:
> "GCC 4.4.5 is planned roughly for end of July, unless some severe
> issue forces us to release it earlier." -
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-04/msg01018.html
>
> Is a 4.4.5 release still planned? When?
There was a P1 bug with Li
2010/9/10 Frédéric Buclin :
> Hi all,
>
> A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database
> (snapshot taken yesterday, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2
> is now live at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
>
> Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or brok
Hi all,
A test installation based on a copy of the GCC Bugzilla database
(snapshot taken yesterday, September 9) and upgraded to Bugzilla 3.6.2
is now live at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla-test/.
Please give it a look, and file bugs related to missing or broken
customizations in the new "Bugzilla"
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Not that I want to discourage anyone. Just practical considerations...
> ;-) I can't believe I'm saing this but: It may be better to spend
> some effort on making clang work as a GCC front end.
Oh, indeed - I'd welcome patches making "f
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> Btw, we do seem to have code in GCC that is not copyrighted by the FSF.
> For example I don't think the FSF owns copyright on the ACATS
> testsuite, and libffi mentions (c) by RedHat.
That code is not part of the compiler proper. The pol
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:11:43PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> > Perhaps a rational approach would be to contact whoever at Apple
>> > currently is
>> > charged with maintaining their objc
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 6:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> The docs say...
>
> @item -Os
> @opindex Os
> Optimize for size. �...@option{-os} enables all @option{-O2} optimizations
> that
> do not typically increase code size. It also performs further
> optimizations designed to reduce code size.
>
>
Hello,
I am porting my application from 32bit to 64bit architecture on intel.
Can anyone point me to some good references for 64bit porting on intel
platform(32bit i686 to 64bit x86_64)
Thanks,
manju
65 matches
Mail list logo
