On Monday 21 May 2007 20:23:46 Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Brooks Moses wrote:
>
> >> What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
> >> else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
> >> a few months. From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html,
> >> it looks like
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> I extracted the relevant patches that would apply
> to 4.2 as they were. Currently regtesting just in
> case.
Err, allow me to rephrase that more clearly: I have
extracted the Geode patches from the trunk and they
applied without modification to the 4.2 branch.
I'm c
Mike Stump wrote:
> Submit to gcc 4.2. Tuning seems to be the type of thing that should
> be safe to backport, if you really must have it.
I extracted the relevant patches that would apply
to 4.2 as they were. Currently regtesting just in
case.
--
// Bernardo Innocenti
\X/ http://www.c
Joe Buck wrote:
>> I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
>> improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
>
> There seem to be quite a large number of not-yet-merged projects
> on the wiki page at
Never mind, I just did some investigation and it appears that
the
On May 21, 2007, at 11:23 AM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
The reason _we_ care to get 4.3 sooner rather than later
is that we'd like to have the AMD Geode tuning
Submit to gcc 4.2. Tuning seems to be the type of thing that should
be safe to backport, if you really must have it.
Anyway, these
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:31:19AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On 5/21/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >And also: why not?
>
> I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
> improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
There seem to be quite a larg
On 5/21/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And also: why not?
I had hoped to get my pointer plus branch merged in which should
improve code gen and memory usage and compile time.
-- Pinski
Brooks Moses wrote:
>> What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
>> else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
>> a few months. From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html,
>> it looks like it would already be quite a juicy release.
>
> Why?
>
> I mean, I su
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 10:39:43PM -0700, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >(the next proposal is likely to cause some dissent)
> >What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
> >else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
> >a few months. From htt
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
(the next proposal is likely to cause some dissent)
What about moving 4.3 to stage 3 *now* and moving everything
else in 4.4 instead? Hopefully, it will be a matter of just
a few months. From http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html,
it looks like it would already be q
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> ...BTTOWWTD!!!
>
> PBTMAICFOTL (Probably better than me as I cannot figure out the latter).
Never mind, it was meant to be impossible to decode: "But The Third
One Was Way Too Difficult" :-)
>> Would these have to go in now or later in 4.4?
>
> I would propose waiting f
I got the second one too. Italians must be good at acronyms. :-)
IMBGAA!
...BTTOWWTD!!!
PBTMAICFOTL (Probably better than me as I cannot figure out the latter).
On the other hand, it may mean that we can skip stage2 altogether, since
we had stage2 during stage1 for 4.3...
I'm definitely
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> I got the first two, but what does the last one mean?
>> Wow, you're impressive... The second one I thought would be too cryptic
>> for all.
>
> I got the second one too. Italians must be good at acronyms. :-)
IMBGAA!
...BTTOWWTD!!!
>>> BTW, the tentative timeline
M
1 - YMMV, YGWYPF, PPINGOFR
I got the first two, but what does the last one mean?
Wow, you're impressive... The second one I thought would be too cryptic
for all.
I got the second one too. Italians must be good at acronyms. :-)
BTW, the tentative timeline says that 4.3 stage 1 will end
On May 18, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Come on, 4.3 doesn't look in such a bad shape!
I'll let history decide...
1 - YMMV, YGWYPF, PPINGOFR
I got the first two, but what does the last one mean?
Wow, you're impressive... The second one I thought would be too
cryptic for
On 5/18/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Come on, 4.3 doesn't look in such a bad shape!
It will soon, when the stage1 projects are finally merged into the trunk.
BTW, the tentative timeline says that 4.3 stage 1 will end
4 months *ago*:
http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timel
Mike Stump wrote:
> On May 18, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>> has a release plan already been set for the 4.3 release?
>
> Just take the dates between 4.1 and 4.2, and add to the 4.2, and
> presto, you have the 4.3 times... Or, put another way, about 15
> months from now.[1]
On May 18, 2007, at 12:51 PM, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
has a release plan already been set for the 4.3 release?
Just take the dates between 4.1 and 4.2, and add to the 4.2, and
presto, you have the 4.3 times... Or, put another way, about 15
months from now.[1]
1 - YMMV, YGWYPF, PPINGOFR
18 matches
Mail list logo
