Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-13 Thread Dorit Naishlos
> The remaining 1.1 projects include: > > * Autovectorization Enhancements (some parts) > 1.2 Incrementally preserve loop-closed form when vectorizing Submitted today: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01318.html 1.3 Improvements to peeling for alignment Submitted today: http://gcc

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Joe Buck: > If it is only Debian on non-shipped platforms, it would be reasonable to > ask the Debian x64-64 people to apply the one-line patch to glibc pointed > to by the PR. It could be a hassle for them now because of the sarge > freeze, though, so maybe fixincludes would be the way to go.

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:07:33 +0100, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:30:40 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Greg Schafer wrote: > > > > > This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 > > > target > > > milestone on this

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:30:40 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greg Schafer wrote: > > > This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 target > > milestone on this bug: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166 > > > > Any chance of making t

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-10 Thread Mark Mitchell
Greg Schafer wrote: This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 target milestone on this bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166 Any chance of making this one a high priority? I've restored the target milestone, but I've marked this as low priority. It wo

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-10 Thread Thorsten Glaser
Mark Mitchell dixit: >4.1 Status >== > >The 4.1 projects Wiki page shows that four projects have been checked >in: Hello etoh-san, do you have a statement about ProPolice for gcc 4? Are you working on it, or even bringing it into mainline (maybe even disabled by default, doesn't matter as

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-09 Thread Joe Buck
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:18:58PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Greg Schafer wrote: > > >This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 > >target > >milestone on this bug: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166 > > > >Any chan

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-09 Thread Diego Novillo
Mark Mitchell wrote: * Structure Aliasing Part I Submitted today. I've started reading it over. Diego.

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-09 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Greg Schafer wrote: This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 target milestone on this bug: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166 Any chance of making this one a high priority? Of course this is a glibc bug and not really a gcc

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-09 Thread Greg Schafer
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 02:51:52PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > As per previous announcements, please do not place a target milestone > on bugs that are not part of the release criteria. Hmm, see below. > 4.0 Status > == > In order to help us hit the April 15th target for GCC 4.0, plea

Re: GCC Status Report (2005-03-09)

2005-03-09 Thread Steven Bosscher
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 23:51, Mark Mitchell wrote: > The remaining 1.1 projects include: > > * Autovectorization Enhancements (some parts) Not seen yet. > * SMS Improvements Part 1 of n (n unknown) submitted and unreviewed so far: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00681.html > *