Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
I'm pleased to announce that Stan Shebs has been (re)appointed as a
maintainer for Darwin, Objc and Objc++ by the GCC Steering Committee.
Please join me in congratulating Stan on his return to these roles.
(Stan please update your entries in these areas of the MAINTA
Mike Stump wrote:
Yes. The SC knows of the issue, and I've recommended
soliciting/accepting more darwin/Objective-C/C++ maintainers. If
anyone would like to step up, just send an email to a SC member and
have them forward it on to the SC for consideration.
Heh, that sounds like my cue. :-) I'
Daniel Berlin wrote:
I believe every opinion anyone could ever have about this issue has been
put forth, and nobody on either side has been convinced of anything,
other than that the other side just doesn't get it.
Well the purpose of the discussion here is precisely to see
if there is a conse
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 08:22:15PM -0400, Howard Hinnant wrote:
And it is not my assertion that gcc's behavior is better or worse
than other compilers. Only that gcc's behavior is unique in the
industry (I actually haven't tried all other modern compilers) and
that unique
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Oh, one more thing. This seems like the normal problem of not
reading the docs
if something does not work the way you want it to work.
So?
The only thing we can do is point it out that it is documented
behavior and
then move on to the next issue. Also why are we d
Joe Buck wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:26:12PM -0400, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
How would people feel about adding a configure option
--with-implicit-extern-c? Then we could justifiably flip the default
for the generic *-elf, etc., targets. In fact in general we could
then take the macro out of
Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:13:21PM -0700, Stan Shebs wrote:
No, there have been plenty of complaints, but the GCC mailing
lists have, shall we say, a "reputation", and a great many
users will not post to them, either for fear of being ridiculed,
or in the expection that
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wednesday 27 April 2005 17:45, Matt Thomas wrote:
The features under discussion are new, they didn't exist before.
And because they never existed before, their cost for older platforms
may not have been correctly assessed.
If someone had cared about them, it would have bee
Fariborz Jahanian wrote:
Today, I tried bootstrapping gcc mainline on/for apple-ppc-darwin. It
fails in stage1.
Is this known?
I haven't seen an ld64 crash myself in a while, but have
been immersing myself in GDB sources lately. Perhaps other
changes to GCC are causing unexpected types of symbols
