Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

2019-10-31 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Joseph Myers : > Here are complete lists of reparentings I think should be done on the > commits that start branches, along with my notes on branches with messy > initial commits but where I don't think any reparenting should be done. > The REPARENT: lines have the meaning I described in >

Error

2019-10-31 Thread pen1979871192
Why i can not search anything in Goole Search

Re: BountySource campaign for gcc PR/91851

2019-10-31 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 11:46:27PM +0100, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: > For AVR -- an other port affected by cc0 removal -- there is a > LLVM/Clang port. It' not as mature as GCC's avr port, but what counts > in the end is support / responsiveness from the community and an > openness for the requir

Re: Fixing cvs2svn branchpoints

2019-10-31 Thread Joseph Myers
Here are complete lists of reparentings I think should be done on the commits that start branches, along with my notes on branches with messy initial commits but where I don't think any reparenting should be done. The REPARENT: lines have the meaning I described in

Re: BountySource campaign for gcc PR/91851

2019-10-31 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schrieb: On 10/31/19 10:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10 release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there respective PRs for the cc0 targets. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09

gcc-7-20191031 is now available

2019-10-31 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-7-20191031 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20191031/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7

Re: BountySource campaign for gcc PR/91851

2019-10-31 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 10/31/19 10:00 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: >>> I didn't follow the lists for some time...  At least neither v9 or v10 >>> release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there >>> respective PRs for the cc0 targets. >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-09/msg01256.html >> >>

Re: BountySource campaign for gcc PR/91851

2019-10-31 Thread Georg-Johann Lay
Peter Bergner schrieb: On 10/30/19 2:31 PM, Georg-Johann Lay wrote: Hi, have the cc0 backends been deprecated? I didn't follow the lists for some time... At least neither v9 or v10 release notes caveats mention such deprecation, neither is there respective PRs for the cc0 targets. https://gc

Re: GCC selftest improvements

2019-10-31 Thread Pedro Alves
On 10/29/19 8:40 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 10:47 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> As discussed earlier, we gain most through C++11 support, there is no need >> to jump to C++17 or C++20 as requirement. > > Yes, I've agreed to raise the requirement to GCC 4.8 which provides

Re: GCC selftest improvements

2019-10-31 Thread Pedro Alves
On 10/26/19 11:46 PM, Eric Gallager wrote: > Nicholas Krause was also wanting to move to C++11 recently: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00110.html (this month) > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-09/msg00228.html (last month) > As I said in that thread, I'd want to try just toggling -Wnarro

Re: Feedback request on how best to handle recursion in concept satisfaction

2019-10-31 Thread Nathan Sidwell
On 10/29/19 4:46 PM, Jeff Chapman wrote: Hello, template concept Foo = requires(T t) { foo(t); }; template requires Foo int foo(T t) { return foo(t); } Similar cases without concepts are handled with -ftemplate-depth/max_tinst_depth but satisfaction on trunk does not currently pass throu