Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)

2008-10-06 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we > require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html > > I'd like to increase the "minimum" MPFR version

Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Rüdiger Müller
Guten Tag, Inwieweit beherrscht der G-C-Übersetzer Unicode? Umlaute sind z.B. noch nicht gestattet? Übersetzungsvorstellung: "Übersetzerkarteien mit z.B. den reservierten Wörtern der Programmbausprache C." Kartei besetzte_Wörter_deutsch: 1 Falls 2 Dann 3 Andernfalls 4 rückgeben Kartei besetzt

RE: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Dave Korn
Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55: God no. Think of the maintenance nightmare. You're not the first person to come up with this idea, and you probably won't be the last, but it's a misbegotten idea, and there's a very good reason why it hasn't been done before, and that's not jus

Re: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Kai Henningsen
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:42:17 +0100 "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55: > > God no. Think of the maintenance nightmare. > > You're not the first person to come up with this idea, and you > probably won't be the last, but it's a misbegotten i

Re: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Joe Buck
Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55: [ proposal to localize keywords: replace if/else/return etc with equivalents from the local language ] On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 06:42:17PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote: > God no. Think of the maintenance nightmare. I guess it's easy for native English

Re: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Andreas Schwab
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately, #define itself can't be replaced. That was really a step backward. It caused some of the early IOCCC entries to no longer work. Andreas. :-) -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 N

[OT] RE: Echte Lokaliserung der Programmbausprache/ Real Localisation of Programming Language

2008-10-06 Thread Dave Korn
[Tagged OT, because I guess we are getting to be, and I won't prolong this thread unduly.] Joe Buck wrote on 06 October 2008 19:11: > Rüdiger Müller wrote on 06 October 2008 17:55: > > [ proposal to localize keywords: replace if/else/return etc with > equivalents from the local language ] > >

Re: Defining a common plugin machinery

2008-10-06 Thread Taras
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: My hypothesis is that several plugin mechanisms for GCC already exist (on some branches or somewhere else). If a small plugin patch has a better chance to get accepted into the trunk, we should limit ourselves to such a small thing. If big plugin machinery could be

Re: Defining a common plugin machinery

2008-10-06 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Taras wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI > > I put up an API proposal. It's a result of the plugin API discussion at the > GCC summit. I believe the API also needs interfaces for verifying compatibility (exporting the required GCC version, target triplet and any

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

2008-10-06 Thread Kaveh R. Ghazi
From: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html I'd like to in

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)

2008-10-06 Thread Kaveh R. Ghazi
From: "Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Okay for mainline? Ok if there are no objections within the week. Thanks, Richard. Great, thanks. Can I get an explicit ack from a fortran maintainer as well? Reg

Help with IA64 profiling bug - g++.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof.C

2008-10-06 Thread Steve Ellcey
I have been looking at why g++.dg/tree-prof/indir-call-prof.C fails on IA64 (HP-UX and Linux). It looks like the optimization (turning an indirect call into a direct call) does not happen because the initial run with -fprofile-generate is not generating any count data about indirect calls. Compa

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

2008-10-06 Thread Ben Elliston
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail > the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix > in the latest/greatest release. That's why we have the minimum/recommended > sp

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

2008-10-06 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > >> The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail >> the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix >> in th

Re: Defining a common plugin machinery

2008-10-06 Thread Taras
Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Taras wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginAPI I put up an API proposal. It's a result of the plugin API discussion at the GCC summit. I believe the API also needs interfaces for verifying compatibility (exporting the required GCC vers