Chris Lattner wrote:
Is the plugin machinery intended to eventually allow new (GPL
compatible) backends to be used? It would be nice to make llvm-gcc be a
plugin.
From what I remember of the plugin BOFS & the Steering Committee Q&A
sessions at last GCC summit permitting GPL-ed plugins is
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:55, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:36:12PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> When we instantiate char_type_node in tree.c:build_common_tree_nodes
>>> we very
I don't want to waste everyone's time with protocol, but I was wondering:
what's the etiquette when pinging patches? Should the ping be a reply
to the original message (i.e. should it be in the same thread), or should
it be a new thread? I was once asked to use new threads instead of the
old one,
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 1:52 AM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> m32c-elf-gcc -mcpu=m32c (16 bit ints, 24 bit pointers) miscompiles
> this:
>
> int *foo (int *a, int b)
> {
> return a-b;
> }
>
> as this:
>
> _foo:
>enter #0 ; 30prologue_enter_24
>pushm
Please don't crosspost between gcc and gcc-help. Thanks.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 02:48, Peng Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Peng Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have the following program. When I step in to test's constructor, I
>> would be able to
Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:55, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:36:12PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> When we instantiate char_type_node in tree.c:build_common_tree_nodes
>>> we very explicitly create a char_type_node that is signed or
Hi Ho!
--- On Fri, 9/19/08, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> In this case the end result is an x86-build
> native-MIPS compiler.
> >> This requires first building an x86-x-MIPS
> copmiler. Of course in
> >> practice it matters whether x86 here
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 04:41, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 6:56 PM, Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:55, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:36:12PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
W
ïîðíî ññûëêè
ïîðíî íàñèëèå
Status
==
The GCC 4.3 branch is open for regression and documentation fixes.
The 4.3 branch has nicely stabilized and the number of new serious
regressions is low. There are quite a number of bugs which
unclear status as of if they are valid or not. I have put them
into WAITING state and CC
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sep 19, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> Basile STARYNKEVITCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I am much more worried about passes and plugins (and I am very
>>> surprised to be almost the only one mentioning passes in plugin
>>> discu
ïîðíî ïèçäà ôîòî
ïîðíî ïðèêîëû
Honestly?
You should use whatever gets a response.
If you are at the point you have to ping a patch, it obviously has
fallen through the cracks, and you should do whatever is necessary to
make sure it gets attention.
To that end, I would just use new threads, as they make it clear it is
not part o
I have been following the development of C++0x and ConceptGCC and it
has got me interested in developing for G++.
I've haven't yet dived far into the G++ code, but I have just been
reading the GCC internals documentation at
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/index.html. (Of course I was
horrified
14 matches
Mail list logo
