Harvey Harrison wrote:
A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over:
1) generate a author's file so the commits have better than just a login
name as the commiter/author.
Very good idea. And the pairing should already be in the aliases
file on gcc.gnu.org.
2) change the layout
Harvey Harrison wrote:
Actually, the newer git-svn's finally switched metadata format, so once
I get done moving it over, it will be ~350MB of git data and 50MB or so
of git-svn metadata. (rev_db vs rev_map format)
Finally.
--
\___/
|___| Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
\___\
Hello All
I = Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 04:06:52PM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
What is the exact intent of the update_path in gcc/prefix.[hc]?
Very complicated and underdocumented; I avoid it for that reason.
Can't you use an existing
Ben Elliston wrote:
>> David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>> To be honest, I find it weird that Subversion even exists. Precisely
>>> because it _is_ so close to what people were using before, as you point
>>> out. I've never really understood why anyone would bother to change from
>>> CVS to SVN -- it jus
I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that
works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me.
I could understand a lot why people would use subversion and not CVS.
Not that I like subversion a lot (the trunk/branches/tags system seems a
bit ad-hoc f
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over:
1) generate a author's file so the commits have better than just a login
name as the commiter/author.
Or in the ChangeLog.
Paolo
Hello,
In porting GCC (still 4.2) to our VLIW processor, I tried to model
pipeline as precisely as possible. If I only model the issue slot
resource, it is fine. GCC generates a small state machine and compiles
code quickly.
However, if I also want to model the resource for writing back register
I don't really know what NDFA, DFA and minimal DFA mean. But by a quick
search I found other machine porting could have the same number as well.
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.lfs.clfs.support/2006-10/msg00042.html
Bingfeng
-Original Message-
From: Galloth [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 1
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:01AM +0100, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> So how do I get $(libexecsubdir)/melt-private-include/ from within C code
> of cc1?
Either by replicating code from the gcc driver, or by adding it to
cc1's command line.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Just like with any other parts of GCC, you can check out the web docs
> and change them yourself. Yes I agree they should be mentioned.
That's fair to some extent, but only to some -- if I find an issue with
the kernel, I'd hope this _not_ to be Andi's
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that
> > works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me.
>
> I could understand a lot why people would use subversion and not CVS.
>
Git-daemon is already running, i think (frank, is this right?)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >> Fair enough. I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
> >> mirror on gcc.gnu.org
My current plan is to bug a few of our devs to try git, and a few to
try hg (for a few weeks each), giving them whatever tutorials are
around, and see if they find it better enough than subversion.
I can try to use git, but I'm already quite experienced in it so I'm not
representative.
(Pe
Hi -
> Git-daemon is already running, i think (frank, is this right?)
Yup. We can slot in a gcc git mirror beside the half-dozen others we
already have. (Angela: the payload data is under the new
/sourceware/projects/FOO-home/gitfiles directory; symlinks from /git.)
I'll try to set up the blan
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 4.4.0 20080314 (experimental) [trunk revision 133215] (i686-pc-cygwin) |
| Assert_Failure uintp.adb:1593|
| No source file position information available
> -nostdinc -
> I- -I. -Iada -I../../gcc/gcc/ada ../../gcc/gcc/ada/ada.ads -o ada/ada.o
> +===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
> | 4.4.0 20080314 (experimental) [trunk revision 133215] (i686-pc-cygwin) |
> | Assert_Failure uintp.adb:1593
Hi -
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository. I'd also suggest Harvey
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on
> gi
Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
This one looks like another test slipping another unsupported
instruction by.
0x020012b8 : bne,pn %icc, 0x200138c
Is this UltraSPARC and not V7? Do we need two bad instructions
in the test case?
Executing on host: /home/joel/work-gnat/svn/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc
On Friday 14 March 2008, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > > Also, if you use a multilib option in testing, that option goes on the
> > > command line *after* the options specified in dg-options. The tests
> > > may need to use dg-skip-if to skip them if any CP
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Joel Sherrill
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It now looks like the scan-tree-dump-times tests are the next
> easy group that isn't supported that needs to be marked as
> not supported. I didn't see anything obv
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr33804.c scan-tree-dump-time
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Also, if you use a multilib option in testing, that option goes on the
command line *after* the options specified in dg-options. The tests may
need to use dg-skip-if to skip them if any CPU option other than the one
in the tes
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> If you all think this is the right approach, ack me and I will
> get the powerpc cases done first and submit a patch for review.
Janis will need to confirm the right approach.
The aim is:
* If no -mcpu option in the multilib flags, run the test (with
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:18 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-mcpu=405" } { "-mcpu=" } } */
>
> I think this is doing what we want it to. It looks like it results
> the tests getting run when -mcpu=405 and excluded when
> -mcpu=603e is set on the board cflags.
The te
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:21 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 10:18 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> > /* { dg-skip-if "" { *-*-* } { "-mcpu=405" } { "-mcpu=" } } */
> >
> > I think this is doing what we want it to. It looks like it results
> > the tests getting run when -mcpu=40
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Paul Brook wrote:
> I you have several of these you might want to consider adding an
> effective-target check that uses a compile test rather than guessing from
> commandline options. c.f. check_effective_target_arm32 and
> check_effective_target_arm_vfp_ok.
Note the issue
This is the beta release of binutils 2.18.50.0.5 for Linux, which is
based on binutils 2008 0314 in CVS on sourceware.org plus various
changes. It is purely for Linux.
All relevant patches in patches have been applied to the source tree.
You can take a look at patches/README to see what have been
Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>Fair enough. I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
>mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
>there.
Having done some heavy public git mirroring lately, and reconnecting old
trees (fixing history), the following might be useful:
Recommend
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Stephen R. van den Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> [svn]
>noMetadata = true
This will prevent users from using the GCC git repository to bootstrap
their own local git-svn-aware repositories. We definitely don't want
to do this.
Ollie
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Manuel> Here is a patch that give us caret diagnostics in C/C++.
>
> Nice.
>
> Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when
> Manuel>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Manuel> Here is a patch that give us caret diagnostics in C/C++.
>
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ian suggested that we delete this information after the FE is
> > finished. This makes sense, I think, from a memory-saving
> > perspective. But, that means we will get di
On 08 Mar 2008 15:39:20 +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Another approach would be to only use the carets for parse errors,
> >which is where they are the most helpful.
>
> And preprocessor if possible
Yes, definitely.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/03/2008, Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "Manuel" == Manuel López-Ibáñez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Manuel> The third approach would be to store an offset and when
> > Manuel> generati
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
> > On 08/03/2008, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> clang points into the original input buffer that was lexed from.
> >> This
> >> requ
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20080314 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20080314/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
>
> Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still,
> it seems the branch is still surprisingly alive, so
"Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
>>
>> Looking at the changes that were made in the last three months still,
>
Status
==
The GCC 4.3 branch is open for commits under normal release branch
rules.
GCC 4.3.1 is due no later than 2008-05-05, but if a workaround for the
x86 direction flag issue is agreed and committed soon then 4.3.1-rc1
may come around a week after such a workaround is committed to the
br
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> >
> > Looking at the changes that were made in the last
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> >
> > Looking at the changes that were made in the last
Status
==
The GCC 4.2 branch is open for commits under normal release branch
rules. All fixes going on that branch should first have gone on trunk
and 4.3 branch.
GCC 4.2.4 is due around 2008-04-02, so 4.2.4-rc1 should be built by
one of the release managers around 2008-03-26. Any further 4
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, David Woodhouse wrote:
I could never understand why anyone would use anything but CVS (if that
works for them), or git. The VCS-du-jour craze just confuses me.
Version control is complicated, much more so than it first appears. There's
a very large design space. Knowing
Hi list,
the 4.3.0 version compiled and installed without promblems, using msys
under WindowsXP SP2.
Thanks to the GCC team!
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: mingw32
Configured with: ../gcc-4.3.0/configure --with-gcc --build=mingw32
--prefix=/mingw --with-mpfd=/usrlocal --with-gmp=/usrl
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> >> > Do we still want to keep this b
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 05:58:12PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> > > > Do we still want to keep this branch alive?
> > >
> > >
45 matches
Mail list logo
