Hi Guys,
I guess back in July, the release of 8.3 was expected by the end of
2018. Now it's February. Is the next release of the 8 series imminent?
if not, any idea when it might come?
Thanks,
John
On 7/7/2017 17:38, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I see large numbers of timeouts in Ada tests on trunk in parallel
run s (make -j96) on x86_64. Messages like the one below appear
in the logs, suggesting some sort of heap corruption. I'm having
trouble reproducing it outside the rest of the test suite (i
On 12/8/2015 4:26 PM, Frédéric Buclin wrote:
> Le 08. 12. 15 14:16, Jonathan Wakely a écrit :
>>> Dropping it is ok I think.
>>
>> Yes, even for the valid "enhancement" cases a maintainer who triages
>> the report could set that easily enough.
>
> If maintainers still use the severity field to tri
On 4/15/2015 10:09, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Trevor Saunders
> wrote:
> I don't buy this kind of argument given that the switch to C++ has
> complicated things instead of simplifying them.
I've written before about how problematic having c++ files with .c
extensio
On 1/31/2015 02:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 30 January 2015 at 21:39, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>
>> pins...@gmail.com writes:
>>> No because they are c++ code so capital C is correct.
>>
>> However, we should avoid relying on case-sensitive file systems
>> (Windows) and use .cc or .cxx for C++ files
On 4/16/2014 03:22, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Douglas B Rupp wrote:
>> On 04/14/2014 02:01 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> No I considered that but I think that number will be very small. Will you
>> concede, in hindsight, that it would be better had the name bee
On 12/13/2012 13:32, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:21 PM, John Marino wrote:
Which clause are you invoking to remove it from the primary tier list?
Richard claimed "they are not at all happy with GPLv3". That's not a reason
listed on your reference. He al
On 12/13/2012 13:09, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, David Brown wrote:
Dropping bsd as a target architecture just because the BSD distributions
don't use it is a bit like dropping support for targeting windows just
because Microsoft didn't use gcc to compile Windows 8.
On 12/13/2012 12:38, David Brown wrote:
On 13/12/2012 12:24, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Marino wrote:
I don't speak for FreeBSD, but dropping them from Tier 1 support because
they don't use a GPLv3 *BASE* compiler is a bit vindictive.
FreeBSD h
On 12/13/2012 11:11, Richard Biener wrote:
They are stuck with pre-GPLv3 GCC compilers anyway.
ISTR we changed the default i?86 triple from i386 to i586 for 4.6, so we
are already half-way through the deprecation. I'd say simply go ahead.
Note that i386-freebsd is still listed as primary arch
obert Dewar wrote:
On 10/28/2010 9:37 AM, John Marino wrote:
This Ada 2012 amendment titled "Calling Unchecked Deallocation is
illegal for zero-sized pools" has been implemented in GCC 4.6.0 recently
(ada/sem_intr.adb). However, the restriction is enforced even when
-gnat2005 (or -
This Ada 2012 amendment titled "Calling Unchecked Deallocation is
illegal for zero-sized pools" has been implemented in GCC 4.6.0 recently
(ada/sem_intr.adb). However, the restriction is enforced even when
-gnat2005 (or -gnat95) switched are explicitly passed to gcc.
Shouldn't this check onl
12 matches
Mail list logo
