Thanks, Andrew, a reasonable reason. Time flies and GCC or its predecessor
has been around for about 25 years. In another 25, hopefully GCC will
still be a leading compiler and the larger numbers won't seem awkward.
Regarding what's a small vs large change, I'd say that building with C++
and newly
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 09:09 -0400, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 06/16/2015 07:05 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> >
> > I have a question about the DRAP register (used for dynamic stack alignment)
> > and about reserving/using hard registers in general. I am trying to
> > understand
> > where, if a dr
On 22.06.15 20:33, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
A while ago Loren James Rittle, who had been taking care of GCC
on FreeBSD for many years and brought the port to modern standards,
wrote the following on this list:
>> I am the named maintainer of the freebsd port. I have been for
>> approximately
A while ago Loren James Rittle, who had been taking care of GCC
on FreeBSD for many years and brought the port to modern standards,
wrote the following on this list:
>> I am the named maintainer of the freebsd port. I have been for
>> approximately twelve years; although I haven't been very
On 22 June 2015 at 14:55, JohnT wrote:
> I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
> major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
> on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
> 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, the 4.8
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 08:55:03 -0500, JohnT wrote:
> I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
> major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
> on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
> 4.7.0, 4.7.1,
> On Jun 22, 2015, at 6:55 AM, JohnT wrote:
>
> I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
> major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
> on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
> 4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4
I am wondering why it appears that GCC has started drastically raising its
major version number for minor changes, instead of spending several years
on version 3 and 4. 4.0.1, 4.1.1 and 4.12, 4.2.3, 4.3.2, 4.4.5, up through
4.7.0, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, the 4.8 and 4.9 releases, then version 5.1 and
talking
Hi,
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, DJ Delorie wrote:
> Note that the DW_AT_decl_file refers to "dj.h" and not "dj.c". If you
> remove the "3" from the '# 1 "dj.h" 1 3' line, the DW_AT_decl_file
> instead refers to "dj.c". It's been this way for many releases.
>
> Is this intentional?
I think it came
Status
==
I plan to release GCC 5.2.0 around July 10th which means a release
candidate being done around July 3rd.
Please check your open regression bugs for ones that eligible for
backporting. Also please help getting the P1 bug count to zero
(there is still the ARM aligned argument passin
On 22 June 2015 at 10:18, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
>> Of Julian Klappenbach
>> Sent: 21 June 2015 16:56
>> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: Possible range based 'for' bug
>>
>> Version info:
>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf
> Of Julian Klappenbach
> Sent: 21 June 2015 16:56
> To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Possible range based 'for' bug
>
> Version info:
>
> Configured with:
> --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Co
Hi Guys,
In this month's news we have:
* GCC now supports a "noplt" function attribute. This specifies
that the annotated function should not be called via the PLT
mechanism.
* GCC now supports a "target ()" function attribute to
enable target specific options on individual fu
13 matches
Mail list logo
