On Wed, May 21, 2025, 05:27 Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2025 at 09:27, Homam Alkhateeb wrote:
> > I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the removal
> of personal information from all relevant messages that I posted on the
> gcc.gnu.org mailing list.
> >
>
On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 23:53 vspefs wrote:
> By the way, what's stop us from having compiler options like
> `g++ -Rgcm.cache -Rsomewhere/else/gcm.cache` to specify CMI repo path,
> like `-I`
> for include paths? It could be useful for projects with complex folder
> structure, as build tools like
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 21:39 vspefs via Gcc wrote:
> Current `-Mmodules` output is based on [P1602R0](wg21.link/p1602r0), which
> speaks about a set of Makefile rules that can handle modules, with the
> help of
> module mappers and a modified GNU Make.
>
> The proposal came out in 2019, and the
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024, 12:31 Arthur Cohen wrote:
> I am aware that this would mean restricting the Rust
> GCC front-end to platforms where the official Rust compiler is also
> available, which is less than ideal. However, this would only be
> temporary - as soon as the Rust front-end is able to co
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024, 11:27 Iain Sandoe wrote:
> E.g. with Ada it is possible to port to a new platform by first building a
> cross-compiler and then to use that cross-compiler to build a “native
> cross” (build != host == target) to provide an initial compiler on the
> target platform.
>
And th
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 5:41 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 11:35:23AM +0200, Helmut Zeisel wrote:
> > >Von: "Jakub Jelinek"
> > >An: "Helmut Zeisel"
> > >Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> > >Betreff: Re: GCC 13.1 compile error when using CXXFLAGS=-std=c++20
> > >On Thu, Apr 27,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 6:20 PM Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Alas http://www.wlandry.net/Projects/FTensor has been down for a while,
> and there does not appear to be a new location?
https://wlandry.net/Projects/FTensor/ works
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023, 14:37 Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Modifying the pass manager
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Pass-manager.html#Pass-manager to
> use clock_gettime system call. See
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/clock_gettime.2.html
Since we can now use c++11, std::chron
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 2:37 PM Jerry D via Fortran wrote:
>
> I had this show up today. I have no idea what this is about.
>
> Please advise.
I assume the buildbot thinks that
https://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=8011fbba7baa46947341ca8069b5a327163a68d5
broke the build, but I fail to se
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 9:30 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> NightStrike wrote:
> > [...]
> > I did another little test to try to better understand your point. I
> > ran a linux native testsuite under a simulator that just sets SIM to "
> > ". This resulted
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:33 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> NightStrike wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 11:00 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >
> >> NightStrike wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:37 PM Jacob Bachmeyer
> >>>
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 11:00 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:37 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >> NightStrike wrote:
> >>
> >>> [...]
> >>> Second, the problems with extra \r's still remain, b
On Wed, Dec 28, 2022, 00:37 Alexander Zaitsev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> We are using GCC for our C++ projects. Our projects are huge, commit
> rate is quite huge, so our CI workers are always busy (so as any other
> CI workers, honestly). Since we want to increase build speed, one of the
> option is to
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 11:37 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> NightStrike wrote:
> > [...]
> > Second, the problems with extra \r's still remain, but I think we've
> > generally come to think that that part isn't Wine and is instead
> > either the test
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 12:38 PM Jacek Caban wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> I'm responsible for Wine changes that cause your problems. I'm also
> CCing Eric, who is Wine console expert, maybe he has better ideas. Eric,
> see [1] if you're interested in the context.
>
>
> Recent Wine versions implement W
On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 11:29 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> NightStrike wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >
> >> [...]
> >> This is either a testsuite problem or an environment problem. The GNU
> >> Fortran I/O m
On Mon, Dec 19, 2022 at 5:43 AM Torbjorn SVENSSON
wrote:
> I'm not sure if this helps anyone, but I experienced something similar with
> Cygwin a while back.
> What I had to do in order to have expect working when testing GCC on Windows
> 10 was to defined the "CYGWIN" environment variable to "d
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:44 PM Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
>
> NightStrike wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 5:52 AM Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >
> >> On 17.12.22 01:26, NightStrike wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:44 AM Thomas Koen
On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 5:52 AM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> On 17.12.22 01:26, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 1:44 AM Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16.12.22 03:20, NightStrike via Fortran wrote:
> >>
> >>> When I run the tes
On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 3:09 PM Paul Koning via Gcc wrote:
> But in any case, how does that relate to the error messages I got? They
> don't seem to have anything to do with missing compilers, but rather with the
> use of language features too new for the available (downloadable) Gnat.
General
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 10:49 David Brown wrote:
>
>
> On 14/11/2022 16:10, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 04:42 David Brown via Gcc
> >
> > Warnings are not perfect - there is always the risk of false
> positives
> >
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022, 04:42 David Brown via Gcc wrote:
> On 13/11/2022 19:43, Alejandro Colomar via Gcc wrote:
> > Hi Andrew!
> >
> > On 11/13/22 19:41, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Andrew Pinski
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2022 at 10:36 AM Alejandro Coloma
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022, 10:30 Junk Trash via Gcc wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to get the opinions of GCC developers regarding adding CMake as a
> build system for GCC. Is it something you would like, something you are
> neutral about, or something you are strongly against?
>
> Thanks for your valuable f
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 11:45 AM Martin Sebor via Gcc wrote:
> ice-on-invalid-code: ICE on code that is not syntactically valid.
> ice-on-valid-code: ICE on code that is syntactically valid.
Presumably, the distinction is there because more attention would get
paid to the latter over the former.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:21 PM Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 6:39 PM NightStrike via Gcc wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 07:16 NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > > When porting to GCC 11, care must be taken to adjust includes of GCC
> > >
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 8:48 AM David Malcolm wrote:
> Thanks for working through the above.
>
> Do you have an account in GCC's bugzilla? If so, please can you turn
> this into a bug report there. Is there a recipe for testing this via
> wine? (it's been almost 20 years since I did any Windows
Should I make this a bugzilla? I guess I figured that wouldn't be
appropriate.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021, 07:16 NightStrike wrote:
> When porting to GCC 11, care must be taken to adjust includes of GCC
> intrinsic headers due to this change:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:16 PM NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> > Which tests are failing, specifically?
Here's the full list of all 37 failures that fail for any reason:
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/dot-output.c dg-check-dot dot-output.c.s
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 4:09 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-08-23 at 09:52 -1000, NightStrike wrote:
> > David,
> >
> > Many of the analyzer tests fail on windows because they hardcode in
> > the
> > typedef of size_t to be unsigned long. Th
David,
Many of the analyzer tests fail on windows because they hardcode in the
typedef of size_t to be unsigned long. This is not a platform independent
definition, though, and is wrong for 64 bit windows. This causes extra
warnings that all of the functions using size_t arguments are wrong,
becau
When porting to GCC 11, care must be taken to adjust includes of GCC
intrinsic headers due to this change:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97148
That should be reflected in:
https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-11/porting_to.html
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 07:36 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> Hi NightStrike,
>
> On June 7, 2021 5:18:13 PM UTC, NightStrike wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> >
> > > The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> > > I cann
On Mon, Jun 7, 2021, 06:12 Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> The Steering Committee can avoid all of this, now.
> I cannot really understand why they shouldn't.
>
Likely because the primary contributor to c++ has said he will stop
contributing unless the change is made.
>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 7:23 AM Ville Voutilainen via Gcc
wrote:
> On the first part, other people have touched on it already,
> but the fear of a dreaded non-free software vendor co-opting
> GCC as a library to a non-free project has resulted in GCC
> being unsuitable to be used as a library in f
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021, 23:42 Iain Sandoe via Gcc wrote:
> it is essential (IMO) that review of code is carried out on a fair and
> technical basis without personal attack or harrassment (or
> unwelcome unrelated attention).
>
Is this not the case on gcc-patches?
>
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:25 AM Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
> An -O? option is not just a set of suboptions it enables
Maybe it should be. I notice this come up often enough at least.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 2:59 PM Aditya Guharoy
wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to know how to download gcc 9.2 in windows from here.
> https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-9.2.0/
> Thanks.
>
Https://mingw-w64.sf.net
>
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:32 AM charfi asma via gcc wrote:
>
> Thank you for your help.
> Yes, It seems that gcj6 is not well installaed.
> Could you please help me to install it ? which installation instruction
> should I follow ?
>
> I can not installed with apt-get
> should I checkout the gc
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:58 PM NightStrike wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
> > Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
> >
> > When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and r
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM NightStrike wrote:
>
> Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
> Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
>
> When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and run the
> testsuite under wine, it all basically works for the most part.
> However,
Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and run the
testsuite under wine, it all basically works for the most part.
However, the log files get filled with what appears to be ANSI escape
sequences of the form:
^[[?1h^
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 9:24 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 21:22, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> >
> > Am 30.08.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > > Thanks for these logs, they're very helpful. Trunk revision r263976
> > > fixes a number of the libstdc++ FAILs (compilation e
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2018 um 15:24 schrieb NightStrike:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Rainer Emrich
>> wrote:
>>> Am 22.08.2018 um 04:03 schrieb NightStrike:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2018 um 04:03 schrieb NightStrike:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>>> вт, 21 авг. 2018 г. в 20:46, NightStrike :
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
>&g
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>
> вт, 21 авг. 2018 г. в 20:46, NightStrike :
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
>> wrote:
>> > Bootstrap is done with msys2 on Windows 7. For the testsuite results see
>> > http
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Bootstrap is done with msys2 on Windows 7. For the testsuite results see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-08/msg02651.html
Did you get SEH to work?
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 05:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I assumed you just want to remove the ChangeLog files, not change
>> contents.
>> Thus I assumed the commit message would simply contain the ChangeLog
>> entry as we requie it today? In
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:48 PM NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:13 PM Eric Botcazou
>> > wrote:
>> >>
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:13 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>
>> > They are definitely useful in my day-to-day work when tracking down changes
>> > given I can easily grep them.
>>
>> Seconded.
>>
>> > I think that any change here should be _after
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Paul Menzel <
> pmenzel+gcc.gnu@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear GCC folks,
> >
> >
> > Some scientists in our organization still want to use the Intel compiler,
> > as they say, it produces faster code,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the res
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> you did for the bugs below is ideal. Adding a test case if one
> doesn't exist in the test suite is also very useful, though quite
> a bit more work.
Isn't a testcase always required?
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess neither redhat
>>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
>>> login page but
Currently, to build natively on cygwin, this patch is required to zlib:
https://github.com/Alexpux/MSYS2-packages/blob/master/zlib/1.2.11-cygwin-no-widechar.patch
Otherwise, this error occurs:
./../zlib/libz.a(libz_a-gzlib.o):gzlib.c:(.text+0x646): undefined
reference to `_wopen'
./../zlib/libz.
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote:
>> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly),
>> GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc
>> (if such exist nowadays), ... are not documented in
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
> Hi
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: NightStrike [mailto:nightstr...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 10:31 PM
>> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
>> Cc: Uros Bizjak (ubiz...@gmail.com) ;
&
The mirror here:
ftp://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc/releases/
Does not have gcc 6 from April.
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 04/05/16 19:20, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2016-05-04@18:15 +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
>>>
>>> - It can't be portably disabled; older versions of gcc do not
>>> accept
>>> '-Wno-misleading-indentation'. (At leas
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
>> If I compile on a k8 Opteron 248 with -march=native, I do not see -mprfchw
>> listed in the options in -fverbose-asm. In the assembly, I see this:
>>
>> prefetcht0 (%rax) # ivtmp.1160
>> prefetcht0 304(%rcx) #
>> pre
Reposting from here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2016-05/msg3.html
Not sure if this applies:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
If I compile on a k8 Opteron 248 with -march=native, I do not see
-mprfchw listed in the options in -fverbose-asm. In the assembly, I
see this:
On https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html about two thirds of the way down:
"As the default mode changed to C11, the __STDC_VERSION__ standard
macro, introduced in C95, is now defined by default, and has the value
201112L."
That should probably be C99.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Would anyone mind backporting these two dependent bug fixes to 4.9?
Will there be another 4.9 release, too? I'm really hoping that branch
can stay open a bit, since I can't upgrade to the new std::string
implementation yet.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 5 branch is open again for regression and documentatio
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:53 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Matt Godbolt writes:
>> GCC's code generation uses a "load; add; store" for volatiles, instead
>> of a single "add 1, [metric]".
>
> GCC doesn't know if a target's load/add/store patterns are
> volatile-safe, so it must avoid them. There are
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 23:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> What are you objecting to, calling the next release from trunk 5.0,
>>> and the next one after that 6.0? Or the wording chosen to describe the
>>> new versioning scheme?
>>
>> Let's not start
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Igor Zamyatin wrote:
> Hi All!
>
> Unfortunately now the compiler generates wrong code for i686 target
> when options -O3 and -flto are used. It started more than a month ago
> and reflected in PR57602.
>
> Such combination of options could be quite important at le
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM, David Brown wrote:
> And of course if someone figures out how to speed up ./configure with
> gcc, the same technique could probably be used on thousands of other
> programs.
Is gcc already using a new enough autoconf (2.64+) to take advantage
of shell functions? T
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Which version has currently been picked, and where can such information
> reliably (thinking of a permanent weblink) be found?
If I were you, I'd use the latest 4.4 compiler. Not only is it the
RHEL6 system compiler, but because of some cr
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> Previously (tested with gcc-4.5.3), constructs like this:-
>
> -- foo.h
>
> struct sigpacket
> {
> int __stdcall process () __attribute__ ((regparm (1)));
> };
>
> -- foo.cpp
>
> #include "foo.h"
>
> int __stdcall
> sigpack
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 11:31 PM, niXman wrote:
> 2013/3/16 Jakub Jelinek:
>> I have so far bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
>> x86_64-linux and i686-linux. Please test it and report any issues to
>> bugzilla.
>
> Also tested i686-w64-mingw32 and x86_64-w64-mingw32 .
Can you post
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Uday Khedker wrote:
> But on a serious note, it would be great to view the course material as more
> than documentation. The way there are "official" manuals and official code
> available on the gcc website (I can't have my own manual and call it GCC
> manual, or p
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> Anyway, it still comes down to figuring out how to find the resources.
> Not clear that there is commercial interest in rapid implementation
> of c++11, we certainly have not heard of any such interest, and in the
> absence of such commercial
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Andris Pavenis wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 11:07 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> On 12/12/12 20:54, Robert Dewar wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2012 2:52 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>>
And as usual: If you use an almost 30 years old architecture, why
would you need the
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:21 AM, 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 also claimed they "not using still maintained
> compilers" whi
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:28:39AM -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> My main concern is losing valid content because of this limitation.
>>
>
> Your only concern is to send email with your android gmail.
>
> You also need to learn to trim the CC l
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> I really think that GCC need some form of garbage collector.
> If it is Ggc+gengtype (to be improved), or Boehm GC, or even
> some other GC (for instance both
> http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/qishintro.html and
> http://gcc.gnu.org/vi
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this.
>> IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the
>> manual correctly, it's beca
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
> >
> >> I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
> >> major user-visible changes.
> > Or a new ABI for libstdc++, I gue
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 12-06-15 12:42 , NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Took me a while, but I built a linux to win64 cross compiler using
>> --enable-build-with-cxx.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> How do I verify that the compiler was
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>
>>> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
>>> mentioned in the list: plea
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 3 June 2012 01:30, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>>
>> After reading up further, it appears that the possibility exists that the
>> script may 'fix' things in the libc headers that we don't want or need
>> 'fixed'. I'm trying to ascertain what t
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> It was a pilot error.
Happens to the best of us :)
Under what conditions does it fail? We use it daily at mingw-w64.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:33 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> When --with-sysroot is used to configure gcc, build will usually fail
> if --with-build-sysroot isn't set. Should --with-build-sysroot be set to
> the same value as --with-sysro
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 13/04/2012 22:45, Oleg Smolsky wrote:
>> On 2012-04-11 01:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> On 2012-04-09 13:03:38 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 4/9/2012 1:36 PM, Jonathan Wake
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 13
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>>
>>>> Shoo
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until some blue
>> sky redesign is implemented means it might never be implemented.
>
> This is a mischaracterization an
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 3:25 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> Generally speaking, I've tri
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/10/12 9:04 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>>
>>> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
>>> mentioned in the list: p
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 10 April 2012 13:11, NightStrike wrote:
>> Generally speaking, I've tried to help people get us a clean build of
>> gcc warning-wise for the windows targets. This has historically been
>> challenging mainly d
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> My plea for help is to everyone who has access to the targets
> mentioned in the list: please follow the instructions in that page and
> fill-in the table entries of the targets that you tested.
>
> If you see a missing target that should be t
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>>> >
>>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >
>> > GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>> >
>> > The first r
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Building gmp/mpfr/mpc in tree fails in the configure-stage1-mpc step
>> with the current version of mpfr version 3.1.0, out since last
>> October, and mpc, version 0.9, out
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> GCC 4.7.0 Release Candidate available from gcc.gnu.org
>
> The first release candidate for GCC 4.7.0 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.7.0-RC-20120302
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/03/2011 15:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 03:13:07PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2011 08:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.6.0 has been released.
>>> Were there any changes
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>
>> Why do a great many targets disable libgcj by default in the toplevel
>> configure.ac?
>
> I believe that it's just a hack: libgcj doesn't build on the target, but
> gcc/java does. Disabling libgcj lets the
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html
>
> There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which
> don't look platform-depen
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jan
1 - 100 of 243 matches
Mail list logo
