On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:13 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > James Dennett writes:
> >
> >> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> >> gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> >> rig
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> James Dennett writes:
>
>> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
>> gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
>> right list)?
>
> I tend to agree that we should change the name of the g
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Rick Hodgin wrote:
> For what it's worth. One of the pages I went to had the email address as
> g...@gnu.org, not even g...@gcc.gnu.org. Somebody corrected me on that
> already too. :-)
Both addresses -- gcc@gcc.gnu.org and g...@gnu.org -- actually work,
interchangably. I d
> > Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> > gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> > right list)?
>
> I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> mailing list.
I don't think it'll help. "gcc-dev: that's the li
James Dennett writes:
> Apart from using the name gcc@gcc.gnu.org for the help list, and
> gcc-...@gcc.gnu.org for developers (who should be able to find the
> right list)?
I tend to agree that we should change the name of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list.
Ian
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Hi Rick (and others),
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
>> My apologies to everyone. I did not know such a list existed.
>
>
Hi Rick (and others),
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
>> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
> My apologies to everyone. I did not know such a list existed.
all of our web pages have a footer which refers to gcc-help, but
> "Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> > Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
> > why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
> -masm=intel
> This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
> list. -Ian Lance Taylor
My apologies to everyone. I did
"Rick C. Hodgin" writes:
> Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
> why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
-masm=intel
This question would have been more appropriate on the gcc-help mailing
list.
Ian
On 9 August 2010 08:08, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Nice. It reads: "3.2.3. Intel syntax - Good news are that starting from
> binutils 2.10 release, GAS supports Intel syntax too. It can be
> triggered with .intel_syntax directive. Unfortunately this mode is not
> documented (yet?) in the off
Tim,
Nice. It reads: "3.2.3. Intel syntax - Good news are that starting from
binutils 2.10 release, GAS supports Intel syntax too. It can be
triggered with .intel_syntax directive. Unfortunately this mode is not
documented (yet?) in the official binutils manual, so if you want to use
it, try to e
On 8/8/2010 10:21 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
All,
Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
- Rick C. Hodgin
I don't know how you get along without a search engine. What about
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Assembly-HOWTO/g
All,
Is there an Intel-syntax compatible option for GCC or G++? And if not,
why not? It's so much cleaner than AT&T's.
- Rick C. Hodgin
13 matches
Mail list logo
