On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for
> DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes
> many hours to go through these testsuite runs.
That'd be great. I'd rather push out a stable relea
On Tue, 26 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote:
> I processed the patch backlog for DejaGnu, and have gone through the
> bug list. It'd be nice if somebody could try master with a more complex
> environment, etc... if I'm going to push out a release. For cross
> testing all I have is a PI and QEMU.
I'l
I processed the patch backlog for DejaGnu, and have gone through the
bug list. It'd be nice if somebody could try master with a more complex
environment, etc... if I'm going to push out a release. For cross
testing all I have is a PI and QEMU.
- rob -
Alexandre,
Your testsuite patches have completely broken the testsuite on AIX.
1000's of testsuite failures because the testsuite is inserting
unsupported options on AIX.
Complaints about -dA, -dD, -dumpbase, etc.
This patch was not properly tested on all targets. Please fix or
revert this patc
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 11:38 AM Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 5/26/20 7:14 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On 5/26/20 3:11 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> >> On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote:
> >>> On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
> > On
Hi Jakub,
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
So, two questions:
- How do I get my gcc-10 branch back into a consistent state?
That works, thanks.
git reset --hard origin/releases/gcc-10
should do it (if you want to throw all your local changes).
- How are ba
On 26/05/2020 18:04, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 13:28, Richard Earnshaw
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/05/2020 17:43, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> As you may know, I've been running validations of GCC trunk in many
>>> configurations for Arm and Aarch64.
>>
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 13:28, Richard Earnshaw
wrote:
>
> On 11/05/2020 17:43, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > As you may know, I've been running validations of GCC trunk in many
> > configurations for Arm and Aarch64.
> >
> >
> > I was recently trying to make some cleanup in th
On 5/26/20 7:14 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 3:11 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I thought we had a convention that ali
On 5/26/20 4:50 PM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
On 26/05/2020 15:09, Martin Liška wrote:
I see, but as mentioned it makes the parsing of the list files much more
complicated. Feel free to provide a patch that will support multi-line
entries.
Thanks! As long as there is no objection to support
gthr-vxworks-thread.c fails to compile for vxworks 5.x:
libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks-thread.c:268:14: error: 'VX_USR_TASK_OPTIONS'
undeclared (first use in this function)
268 | options &= VX_USR_TASK_OPTIONS;
| ^~~
libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks-thread.c:282:3: e
Commit 806dd0472f56 (Improve the thread support for VxWorks)
introduced calls of (on vxworks 5 at least) non-existing
__gthread_enter_tls_dtor_context/__gthread_leave_tls_dtor_context ;
the code used to call
__gthread_enter_tsd_dtor_context/__gthread_leave_tsd_dtor_context. Those
are simply no-ops
_VXW_PRE_69 was introduced in 806dd0472f, then replaced by
_VXWORKS_PRE(6,9) in abb6c3eecf, but this one was missed.
Fixes: abb6c3eecf (Introduce an internal API for VxWorks version checks)
---
libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/libgcc
Fix
gcc-src/libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks.c:65:7: warning: implicit declaration of
function 'taskDelay'; did you mean 'sysDelay'? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
65 | taskDelay (1);
---
libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/libgcc/config/gthr-vx
The vxworks-cond.c file fails to compile for vxworks 5.x:
libgcc/config/gthr-vxworks-cond.c:29:
./gthr-default.h:274:3: error: unknown type name 'TASK_ID'
274 | TASK_ID task_id;
| ^~~
There is a TASK_ID typedef in our system headers, but (1) is is
commented out, (2) lives in some
Hi Olivier et al
I'm having quite a bit of trouble getting gcc 10 to build for our
vxworks 5 (5.5.1) target. The first thing I hit is
#if !defined(_WRS_VXWORKS_MAJOR)
#error "VxWorks version macros needed but not defined"
#endif
Our version.h doesn't define that macro (however, there's a
_WRS_VX
On 26/05/2020 15:09, Martin Liška wrote:
I see, but as mentioned it makes the parsing of the list files much more
complicated. Feel free to provide a patch that will support multi-line
entries.
Thanks! As long as there is no objection to support this, I have no
problem giving it a try. :-) I j
On 5/26/20 3:14 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
-- '*ChangeLog*'
Thank you for the comment.
There's a proper patch for 'git gcc-backport' alias.
Thoughts?
Martin
>From a1511dd6ccda73befe3282c43671a6c4623d5d7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Martin Liska
Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 15:32:32 +0200
Subject
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 03:14:54PM +0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> > > > gcc-ci?
> > >
> > > What the abbreviation stands for?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > > >
> > > > R.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > CheckIn
> >
> > For those who come from the SVN days where ci was the standard
> > abbreviation for c
On 5/26/20 3:11 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with
'gcc-'?
On Mai 26 2020, Martin Liška wrote:
> subprocess.check_output('git show --name-only --pretty="" | '
> 'grep ChangeLog | '
git show --name-only --pretty= -- '*ChangeLog*'
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4
On 26/05/2020 14:09, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
>>> On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with
'gcc-'? This seems to go against that
On 5/26/20 1:18 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with
'gcc-'? This seems to go against that.
You are right, but this one is so handy ;)
What name
On 5/26/20 2:35 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Martin,
It looks like the hook does not accept multi-line ChangeLog entries
affecting multiple files:
* contracts.adb, einfo.adb, exp_ch9.adb, sem_ch12.adb,
sem_ch4.adb, sem_ch7.adb, sem_ch8.adb, sem_elab.adb,
sem_type.adb, s
On 5/26/20 1:34 PM, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I haven't investigated in detail, but could we use a merge strategy with
the cherry-pick to drop ChangeLog entries?
If that works, sure.
Note, when cherry-picking commits from bef
Hi Martin,
>> It looks like the hook does not accept multi-line ChangeLog entries
>> affecting multiple files:
>>> * contracts.adb, einfo.adb, exp_ch9.adb, sem_ch12.adb,
>>> sem_ch4.adb, sem_ch7.adb, sem_ch8.adb, sem_elab.adb,
>>> sem_type.adb, sem_util.adb: Reuse Is_Packag
On 5/26/20 12:15 PM, Pierre-Marie de Rodat wrote:
Hello Martin,
First, thank you for your work on this new ChangeLog workflow. :-)
Hello.
Thank you.
I’d like to report a “regression”: I can’t push the attached patch:
remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
remote: ERR: changed file not menti
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:27:59PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> I haven't investigated in detail, but could we use a merge strategy with
> the cherry-pick to drop ChangeLog entries?
If that works, sure.
Note, when cherry-picking commits from before conversion to git or whenever
people started
On 26/05/2020 12:19, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>> Am 26.05.20 um 11:04 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc:
>>> Am 26.05.20 um 00:48 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc:
>>>
I've turned the strict mode of Martin Liška's hook changes,
>>>
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 26.05.20 um 11:04 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc:
> > Am 26.05.20 um 00:48 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc:
> >
> > > I've turned the strict mode of Martin Liška's hook changes,
> >
> > This means that it is no longer possible to do
On 26/05/2020 12:14, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
>> I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with
>> 'gcc-'? This seems to go against that.
>
> You are right, but this one is so handy ;)
> What name do you suggest?
>
> Martin
gcc-c
On 5/26/20 12:23 PM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I thought we had a convention that aliases we added were prefixed with
'gcc-'? This seems to go against that.
You are right, but this one is so handy ;)
What name do you suggest?
Martin
Am 26.05.20 um 11:04 schrieb Thomas Koenig via Gcc:
Am 26.05.20 um 00:48 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc:
I've turned the strict mode of Martin Liška's hook changes,
This means that it is no longer possible to do a git gcc-backport
[CC'ing fortran to warn other people against currently trying
On 25/05/2020 20:41, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 5:23 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>>
>> On 5/22/20 11:01 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:03 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:39 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> On 5
Hello Martin,
First, thank you for your work on this new ChangeLog workflow. :-)
I’d like to report a “regression”: I can’t push the attached patch:
remote: *** ChangeLog format failed:
remote: ERR: changed file not mentioned in a ChangeLog:"gcc/ada/sem_ch4.adb"
remote: ERR: changed file not me
Am 26.05.20 um 00:48 schrieb Jakub Jelinek via Gcc:
I've turned the strict mode of Martin Liška's hook changes,
This means that it is no longer possible to do a git gcc-backport
followed by a git push. If there is a procedure for this, it
is not documented on https://gcc.gnu.org/gitwrite.html
Hi, Martin,
On May 26, 2020, Martin Liška wrote:
>> I've long used the following syntax to start ChangeLog entries:
>>
>> for /ChangeLog
> Ah, it's new for me.
>>
>> It was introduced over 20 years ago, with the (so far never formally
>> released) GNU CVS-Utilities. Among other goodies, th
37 matches
Mail list logo
