On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 11:39:25AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Roberto COSTA wrote:
> >In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a
> >development branch.
>
> I too think the SC should decide this issue. They are there for
> guidance, and on this issue
On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 AM, Roberto COSTA wrote:
In the meantime, I hope this doesn't prevent requesting a
development branch.
I too think the SC should decide this issue. They are there for
guidance, and on this issue, I think that is what we need.
I don't think this prevents anyone fro
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Roberto COSTA writes:
> >
> > By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the
> > inclusion of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted
> > until the issue is discussed and an approval is obtained.
>
> Right. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
Roberto COSTA wrote:
> Ori Bernstein wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >said:
> >
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
> >>team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binar
Roberto COSTA writes:
>
> By the way, from the previous messages, I understand that the
> inclusion of a CIL back-end into gcc cannot be taken as granted
> until the issue is discussed and an approval is obtained.
Right. And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.
> In the meantime, I hope this
Ori Bernstein wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Hello,
I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
(compliant with ECMA specification, see
htt
Ori Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:36:49 -0700, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Free software is all about collaboration with third parties, as I'm
>> sure that the SoC people are well aware.
>
> True. I'd still suggest asking and making sure, since I know for a fact that
> stu
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 10:36:49 -0700, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Free software is all about collaboration with third parties, as I'm
> sure that the SoC people are well aware.
True. I'd still suggest asking and making sure, since I know for a fact that
students aren't allowed to work toge
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 01:36:35PM -0500, Ori Bernstein wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:26:41 -0400, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
> > parties can do?
>
> It would restrict whether he could collaborate with a 3rd party.
Free soft
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:26:41 -0400, Robert Dewar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
> parties can do?
It would restrict whether he could collaborate with a 3rd party.
--
When does summertime come to Minnesota, you ask? Well, last year, I
think it wa
Ori Bernstein wrote:
Perhaps you could collaborate with him, or (as I believe the Summer of Code
rules might require) build off his work after it gets submitted. I'd suggest
you contact the Mono project about it.
How could SoC rules in any way restrict what third
parties can do?
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
> team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
> (compliant with ECMA specification, see
> http://www.ecma-
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 09:50:13 +0200, Roberto COSTA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working for an R&D organization of STMicroelectronics. Within our
> team we have decided to write a gcc back-end that produces CIL binaries
> (compliant with ECMA specification, see
> http://www.ecma-
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:00:36PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Roberto COSTA wrote:
> > It looks like you don't assume such an approval as granted... may I ask
> > you why?
>
> Because they have a history of not granting such things, believing that
> it serves to hinder, not further, the goal o
Roberto COSTA wrote:
> Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40:
>>
>>
>>> This page has no discussion about a CIL backend.
>>>
>> Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode
>> representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in
>> common wi
Diego Novillo wrote:
Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40:
This page has no discussion about a CIL backend.
Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode
representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in
common with an effort to build a CIL backend.
Th
On Jun 12, 2006, at 9:56 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Could one of the SC people bring this question one level up?
I don't know if this is relevant at this point but GCC did have
at one point did have a Java byte code outputter but it was
removed on the request of RMS.
-- Pinski
Diego Novillo wrote:
> > The document in which Mark has announced the LTO briefly mentions
> > that CIL was not retained for dumping the IR, without giving an
> > explicit reason, so I think that we need a clear position from the
> > FSF whether such a backend is accepted to be part of GCC.
> >
Sebastian Pop wrote on 06/12/06 12:40:
> This page has no discussion about a CIL backend.
>
Note that I never said 'CIL'. I specifically said 'bytecode
representation'. The work being done for LTO will have some points in
common with an effort to build a CIL backend.
> The document in which Ma
Diego Novillo wrote:
> Roberto COSTA wrote on 06/12/06 03:50:
>
> > Every so often CIL looks to poke in the works of the mailing list, but I
> > haven't been able to track the current status of the discussion on the
> > topic.
> >
> We have started work on a bytecode representation that will initi
Roberto COSTA wrote on 06/12/06 03:50:
> Every so often CIL looks to poke in the works of the mailing list, but I
> haven't been able to track the current status of the discussion on the
> topic.
>
We have started work on a bytecode representation that will initially be
used for link-time optimiza
21 matches
Mail list logo
