Hi
I am working on expanding auto par for outer loops, and while doing so,
I need to duplicate the whole body of the outer loop. the current
function that is used for the inner loops
is gimple_duplicate_sese_tail, only it doesn't support subloops.
Any ideas on how I can alternatively get the s
* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
>
> (But the configure code also
> shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
only redistribution is.
Cheers,
Ralf
> Because at some point, no released version worked on intel macs.
Long since passed and can be removed?
Or only do it on those machines??
Granted, the Python-wrapping-build I'm doing ought to work as well on Intel
Macs as anywhere else.
Here is what ends up happening:
#include
#include
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
> >
> > (But the configure code also
> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
>
> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
> only
Jay wrote:
Because at some point, no released version worked on intel macs.
Long since passed and can be removed?
I don't think so, http://gmp.darwinports.com/ shows that it is still a
problem with 4.2.2. Besides, GMP's authors say that it is often a
stress test for compilers, so using mor
On 2008-08-04 13:05:09 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I don't think so, http://gmp.darwinports.com/ shows that it is still a
> problem with 4.2.2.
This is a commercial and out-of-date web site. You should look at
MacPorts instead:
http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/devel/gmp/Portfil
Szia
Szeretnék figyelmedbe ajánlani egy INGYENES SEX OLDALT!!!
IME A CIME: http://freesex.rapidsms.eu
Hi,
We are using the MontaVista release of gcc. We had a 30 days license from
MontaVista for their DevRocket development platform.
We had a big surprise when the license expired. Gcc stopped working from the
command line and displayed a message stating the license time expired.
I had a talk
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
>> >
>> > (But the configure code also
>> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
>>
> We are using the MontaVista release of gcc. We had a 30 days license from
> MontaVista for their DevRocket development platform.
>
> We had a big surprise when the license expired. Gcc stopped working from
> the command line and displayed a message stating the license time expired.
>
> I had a
Serge Croteau wrote on 04 August 2008 16:35:
> Hi,
>
> We are using the MontaVista release of gcc. We had a 30 days license
> from MontaVista for their DevRocket development platform.
>
> We had a big surprise when the license expired. Gcc stopped working from
> the command line and displayed
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We are using the MontaVista release of gcc. We had a 30 days license from
>> MontaVista for their DevRocket development platform.
>>
>> We had a big surprise when the license expired. Gcc stopped working from
>> the command
Daniel Berlin wrote on 04 August 2008 17:07:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
(But the configure code also
shouldn't
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:18:17PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > We are using the MontaVista release of gcc. We had a 30 days license from
> > MontaVista for their DevRocket development platform.
> >
> > We had a big surprise when the license expired. Gcc stopped working from
> > the command line
Daniel Berlin wrote:
If we are doing that, we really shouldn't be.
One of the very explicit freedoms in the GPL is to be able to build
versions for internal use that are not publicly distributed.
I completely agree that that is an important freedom guaranteed by the
GPL. The GPL requirement
Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 10:00:38PM CEST:
> >> > (But the configure code also
> >> > shouldn't allow configuring with a GPLv2 version of polylib.)
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >> Why? Use is not forbidden by incompatible free software licenses here,
> >> only
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 05:24:12PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote on 04 August 2008 17:07:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >>
> >>> * Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Aug 03, 2008 a
On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about just convincing the polylib people to change their license
> to GPL2||GPL3 and be done with this?
As mentioned in the original message, this process has already started:
it is a matter of a few months (hope not years)
* Joe Buck wrote on Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 06:36:31PM CEST:
>
> Back when the UWIN issue came up, the decision RMS and the SC worked out
> about where to set the line was as Joseph states: we don't want the
> ordinary process of configuring and building GCC from FSF sources to
> produce an undistrib
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> How about just convincing the polylib people to change their license
> to GPL2||GPL3 and be done with this?
Yes, that would not only solve this issue but also avoid needing to deal
with the C++ issues (such as arranging to link with static libstdc++ on
all
20 matches
Mail list logo
