> I will announce the time I am doing the last trunk -> alias-improvements
> branch merge and freeze the trunk for that.
>
> Thus, this is a heads-up - if I collide with your planned merge schedule
> just tell me and we can sort it out.
I was planning to commit the vectorizer reorganization patch
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Ira Rosen wrote:
>
> > I will announce the time I am doing the last trunk -> alias-improvements
> > branch merge and freeze the trunk for that.
> >
> > Thus, this is a heads-up - if I collide with your planned merge schedule
> > just tell me and we can sort it out.
>
> I was
Richard Guenther wrote on 29/03/2009 13:05:56:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Ira Rosen wrote:
>
> >
> > > I will announce the time I am doing the last trunk ->
alias-improvements
> > > branch merge and freeze the trunk for that.
> > >
> > > Thus, this is a heads-up - if I collide with your planned mer
Hi all,
This mail is a request for some help from our local build machinery
experts... We have a patch under testing for libgfortran to add
runtime memleaks checking, and it uses libiberty's hash tables. So, we
now link gfortran programs with libiberty. We also need to link in
libiberty w
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM, FX wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This mail is a request for some help from our local build machinery
> experts... We have a patch under testing for libgfortran to add runtime
> memleaks checking, and it uses libiberty's hash tables. So, we now link
> gfortran programs with
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 00:48 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> > > If you're able to compile and install GCC on a system then my experience
> > > is that configuring and installing GMP and MPFR from .tar.gz is hassle
> > > free (you must use --disable-sh
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
thanks for the detailed explanation. I admit we always have postoponed the
issue of cross-compilation... to the point we almost forgot it. We will
fix the PPL asap. Can we come back to you in case we are unsure about which
def
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I think
> depreciating Itanium1 tuning for 4.4 and removing it in 4.5 is
> reasonable. Code generated and tuned for Itanium2 should run fine on
> Itanium1 (Merced). It won't be scheduled optimally of course, but it
> should run correctly.
(.
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I see that libgfortran is GPLv2 + exception while libiberty is LGPLv2. I
> think
> for statically linking libiberty into libgfortran there may be issues.
The license situation for libiberty is much more complicated than that;
parts are GPL (no exc
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> /home/guerby/build-ppl/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/home/guerby/build-ppl/./prev-gcc/
> -B/n/17/guerby/install-trunk-ppl/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -g -O2
> -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
> -Wcast-qual -Wold-st
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> > I think
> > depreciating Itanium1 tuning for 4.4 and removing it in 4.5 is
> > reasonable. Code generated and tuned for Itanium2 should run fine on
> > Itanium1 (Merced). It won't be scheduled
If you wish to use particular files from libiberty in a runtime
library,
you'll need FSF approval to distribute them under GPL + exception
I'm interested only in include/hashtab.h and libiberty/hashtab.c,
which are both currently under GPL2. How does one ask for FSF approval
to distribute
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 14:37 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
> > /home/guerby/build-ppl/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/home/guerby/build-ppl/./prev-gcc/
> > -B/n/17/guerby/install-trunk-ppl/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/bin/ -g -O2
> > -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-stri
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> libbackend.a(builtins.o): In function `fold_builtin_1':
> ../../trunk/gcc/builtins.c:10319: undefined reference to `mpfr_j0'
> ../../trunk/gcc/builtins.c:10325: undefined reference to `mpfr_j1'
> ../../trunk/gcc/builtins.c:10331: undefined reference to
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
done apart from this:
> 13. Asking Danny Berlin to adjust PRs.
Daniel, could you change "4.4" to "4.4/4.5" in the summaries of all o
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 11:20:35AM +0100, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Eric Botcazou
> > wrote:
> > >> I have done this, and applied this patch to reflect that submitting a
> > >> snapshot to the TP is not necessary afte
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
>
> I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
> done apart from this:
>
>> 13. Asking Danny Berlin to adjust PRs.
>
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 15:21 +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
>
> > libbackend.a(builtins.o): In function `fold_builtin_1':
> > ../../trunk/gcc/builtins.c:10319: undefined reference to `mpfr_j0'
> > ../../trunk/gcc/builtins.c:10325: undefined reference to `
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >
> >> The tasks that remain from branching.html are:
> >
> > I believe everything needed for starting the new release branch is now
> > done apar
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Roberto Bagnara wrote:
> > > thanks for the detailed explanation. I admit we always have postoponed
> > > the
> > > issue of cross-compilation... to the point we almost forgot it. We will
> > > fix the
Hello All,
I am a PhD student who has been working with CUDA for the GPU and also
gcc for Cell BE for about a year now. (By work I mean developing
applications). I am looking to bring GCC closer to being able to
support OpenCL as a Google Summer of Code. Here are some of my ideas:
1. Make an NV
Richard,
On 29 Mar 2009, at 12:08, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM, FX wrote:
Hi all,
This mail is a request for some help from our local build machinery
experts... We have a patch under testing for libgfortran to add
runtime
memleaks checking, and it uses libiberty
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:32, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> I can confirm that PPL now builds successfully for i686-mingw32 host. The
> next problem is that CLooG (the tarball in the infrastructure directory)
> doesn't appear portable to this system (in the secondary platforms list
> for 4.4 and
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> I do see that FreeBSD Ports has mpfr 2.4.1. How advanced of them.
> Amazing :-()
It's possible I am missing something here. According to
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/ (reachable from http://www.mpfr.org/
by following "Latest release") this is the
Hi,
phil++ wrote:
I am a PhD student who has been working with CUDA for the GPU and also
gcc for Cell BE for about a year now. (By work I mean developing
applications). I am looking to bring GCC closer to being able to
support OpenCL as a Google Summer of Code. Here are some of my ideas:
1. M
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 01:00:50PM +0200, FX wrote:
> This mail is a request for some help from our local build machinery
> experts... We have a patch under testing for libgfortran to add
> runtime memleaks checking, and it uses libiberty's hash tables. So, we
> now link gfortran programs wit
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090329 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090329/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Hello All
What is the status of the plugins branch? I understood that once GCC
goes back in stage 1, the plugins branch should go into the trunk?
Or is this related to the recurring runtime licensing issues?
In other words, are there any hard reasons to avoid adding plugins into
the current
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:48:19AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> >> Technically Stage 4 is the same as release branch status (just without
> >> branching
> >> before). But indeed, we should update develop.html - does this need to go
> >> via
> >> the SC?
> >
> > We shou
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 18:52, Basile STARYNKEVITCH
wrote:
> I understood that perhaps Diego Novillo (and some others GCC gurus) would
> merge plugins into trunk as soon as the trunk is back in stage 1?
Yes, I will merge plugins into trunk during stage 1. Hopefully soon.
Diego.
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I do see that FreeBSD Ports has mpfr 2.4.1. How advanced of them.
Amazing :-()
It's possible I am missing something here. According to
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/ (reachable from http://www.mpfr.org/
by fo
31 matches
Mail list logo
