On 23 April 2010 07:22, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 23/04/2010 05:47, tbp wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:48 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Dear tbp, please don't accuse people of being deceptive or fraudulent, it
>>> is
>>> not a nice thing to do.
>> Indeed. That wasn't the intent.
>
> I apologise, I
I'm redirecting my question here, since it also applies to "gcc
-static" on Cygwin.
Cheers,
Janus
-- Forwarded message --
From: Janus Weil
Date: 2010/4/23
Subject: static linking on Cygwin
To: gfortran
Hi all,
I have just tried the gfortran 4.3.4 build on Cygwin/WinXP (I'm
Heyho!
Usually I'd report an ICE by using -save-temps and reporting with the full
commandline.
Now an ICE with -flto happens during the link stage. And, since KDE is
quite a bit of code, there's a ton of object files and shared libraries
specified on the commandline.
Is there a way to cut th
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> 2010/4/14, Richard Guenther :
>> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen wrote:
>> > Hi All,
>> >
>> > I have implemented some vectorization features in my gcc port.
>> >
>> > In the generated code for this function I can see
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Heyho!
>
> Usually I'd report an ICE by using -save-temps and reporting with the full
> commandline.
>
> Now an ICE with -flto happens during the link stage. And, since KDE is
> quite a bit of code, there's a ton of object files and shar
* Ian Lance Taylor (i...@google.com) [20100413 00:41]:
> Details of GIMPLE IR: poor.
> Details of tree IR: poor.
> How to write a new optimization pass: poor.
> How to write a new frontend: nonexistent.
> General overview of compiler source: nonexistent.
> Overview of internal compiler datastructu
I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
The additional overhead for building the plugin support is
close to nil and the user has to explicitly invoke the loading
of a com
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
> in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
> known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
> The additional overhead for building the plugin support is
> close to
Jack Howarth wrote:
I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
I find enabling plugins by default on every system where plugin are
working a very good idea.
Besides,
Plugin support is enabled by default if it works.
I can confirm this - on my linux box I don't have to explicitly
specify --enable-plugin.
Ciao,
Duncan.
On 23 April 2010 15:05, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> * Ian Lance Taylor (i...@google.com) [20100413 00:41]:
>
>> Details of GIMPLE IR: poor.
>> Details of tree IR: poor.
>> How to write a new optimization pass: poor.
>> How to write a new frontend: nonexistent.
>> General overview of compiler source: n
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 5:35 AM, Janus Weil wrote:
> I'm redirecting my question here, since it also applies to "gcc
> -static" on Cygwin.
>
> Cheers,
> Janus
>
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Janus Weil
> Date: 2010/4/23
> Subject: static linking on Cygwin
> To: gfortran
>
Since gcc 4.4 I get considerably more
"dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules"
warnings with my code. The code ist used for message en- and de-capsulation.
The basic message structure is defined like that
struct msg {
uint8_t msg_type;
uint8_t msg_len;
uint8_t m
On 4/23/10 06:50 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
> in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
> known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
Plugins are already enabled if the dlopen tests succeed while
configuring the compil
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 08:43:41AM -0700, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On 4/23/10 06:50 , Jack Howarth wrote:
> >I am wondering why we don't default on --enable-plugin
> > in gcc 4.6 (and perhaps 4.5.1) for those hosts that are
> > known to have working testsuite results of plugin.exp?
>
> Plugins a
Dear all,
I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I
wonder whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case
correct. Consider the following two programs:
(1)
int test(int n) {
if (n > 0)
return 1;
return 0;
}
(2)
int test(int n) {
if (2*n > 0
2010/4/23 Heinz Riener :
> Dear all,
>
> I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I wonder
> whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case correct.
> Consider the following two programs:
>
> (1)
> int test(int n) {
> if (n > 0)
> return 1;
> return 0;
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
wrote:
Dear all,
I'm using the native GCC version[1] of my GNU/Linux distribution. I
wonder whether GCC's optimization behavior is in the following case
correct. Consider the following two programs:
(1)
int test(int n
I added this question to the FAQ:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#signed_overflow
Feel free to improve the answer for the future.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 23 April 2010 19:35, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I'
Dear all,
I've been working on a side port for an architectural variant and
therefore there are a few differences in the assembler and linker to
be handled.
I know we can pass -Wl,option, -Wa,option from gcc down to as and ld
however if I have to write :
gcc -mArch2 -Wl,--arch2 -Wa,--arch2 hello
On 04/23/2010 10:55 AM, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
Dear all,
I've been working on a side port for an architectural variant and
therefore there are a few differences in the assembler and linker to
be handled.
I know we can pass -Wl,option, -Wa,option from gcc down to as and ld
however if I ha
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:55:48PM -0400, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> I know we can pass -Wl,option, -Wa,option from gcc down to as and ld
> however if I have to write :
>
> gcc -mArch2 -Wl,--arch2 -Wa,--arch2 hello.c
>
> it gets a bit redundant, I must be blind because I can't seem to find
>
On 04/23/2010 07:35 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 23, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Heinz Riener
wrote:
[...]
Signed interger overflow is undefined. Use -fwrapv or
-fno-strict-overflow if you want gcc to behave as signed interger
overflow being defined.
Yes, that's what I wa
This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
list but hardly say or do anything.
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
Cheers,
Manuel.
PS: Actually, I am not sure how many people read this list and
On 23/04/10 11.39, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
PS: Actually, I am not sure how many people read this list and not contribute.
Actually, I would say many, the famous "lurkers". I did that myself for
some time, then I tried to contribute to the library, successfully, as
it turned out ;)
Paol
I've happened to be looking at a number of other free-software projects
recently (having nothing to do with compilers) and find the quality of the
code ABSOLUTELY APALLING. The formatting is random and very hard to read.
There are almost no comments. There are few, if any, indications of what
eac
I have no hardware to test patches, small free time to work and my
english is bad.
But sometimes i submit bug reports :)
2010/4/23 Manuel López-Ibáñez :
> This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
> several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
> list
On 04/23/2010 11:39 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
list but hardly say or do anything.
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
I am going to answer why
On 23 April 2010 21:24, Дмитрий Дьяченко wrote:
> I have no hardware to test patches, small free time to work and my
> english is bad.
I always test patches in the CompileFarm.http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
In fact, I only do development in the CompileFarm. I have a not very
powerful laptop
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
list but hardly say or do anything.
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
Not sure we should spam this
On 04/23/2010 02:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 23 April 2010 21:24, Дмитрий Дьяченко wrote:
I have no hardware to test patches, small free time to work and my
english is bad.
I always test patches in the CompileFarm.http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm
In fact, I only do develo
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 14:10, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> I've happened to be looking at a number of other free-software projects
> recently (having nothing to do with compilers) and find the quality of the
> code ABSOLUTELY APALLING. The formatting is random and very hard to read.
> There are almos
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
> several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
> list but hardly say or do anything.
>
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
The lack o
On 23 April 2010 21:45, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
>> several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
>> list but hardly say or do anything.
>>
>> What reasons keep y
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, HyperQuantum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
>
> The lack of time, for the most part.
I submitted a feature request once. It's now four years old, still
open, and the last
On 23 April 2010 22:05, HyperQuantum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, HyperQuantum wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>
>>> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
>>
>> The lack of time, for the most part.
>
> I submitted a feature request
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 13:39, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
I'm really quite the outsider (I don't even deserve to be called a
"lurker"), but my impression is that the common wisdom among the
proles is that gcc is bloated and crufty and everyone is
Hi
I've submitted an application to gcc in terms of Google Summer of Code
2010, but I have not received any comments yet. The idea of this
application was discussed here in the mailing list and I received
quite some support.
If people are still thinking whether accept it or not than it is ok,
but
On Friday 23 April 2010 22:05:56 HyperQuantum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, HyperQuantum
wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> >
> > wrote:
> >> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
> >
> > The lack of time, for the most part.
>
> I submitted
On 23 April 2010 21:58, HyperQuantum wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for
>> several projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this
>> list but hardly say or do anything.
>>
>> What
Eduard Hasenleithner writes:
> Since gcc 4.4 I get considerably more
> "dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules"
> warnings with my code. The code ist used for message en- and de-capsulation.
This question is not appropriate for the mailing list gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
which
On 23 April 2010 22:23, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> On Friday 23 April 2010 22:05:56 HyperQuantum wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, HyperQuantum
> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
>> >
>> >
On 23 April 2010 21:52, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 14:10, Richard Kenner
> wrote:
>> I've happened to be looking at a number of other free-software projects
>> recently (having nothing to do with compilers) and find the quality of the
>> code ABSOLUTELY APALLING. The formatt
Artem Shinkarov writes:
> I've submitted an application to gcc in terms of Google Summer of Code
> 2010, but I have not received any comments yet. The idea of this
> application was discussed here in the mailing list and I received
> quite some support.
>
> If people are still thinking whether ac
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:36, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> In any case, I think coming from you it is a bit hurtful because I
> have personally fixed many of your bugs and I haven't seen a
> single beer yet! Where is my beer?
Where's his beer for finding bugs?
Hi Artem,
On 04/23/10 22:22, Artem Shinkarov wrote:
Hi
I've submitted an application to gcc in terms of Google Summer of Code
2010, but I have not received any comments yet. The idea of this
application was discussed here in the mailing list and I received
quite some support.
If people are sti
* Manuel López-Ibáñez:
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
My most recent case: I could not make my needs meet with those of
fringe/embedded architectures, so my little work on a patch led to
nowhere (as of now).
On 23 April 2010 22:44, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:36, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> In any case, I think coming from you it is a bit hurtful because I
>> have personally fixed many of your bugs and I haven't seen a
>> single beer yet! Where is my beer?
>
> Where's his b
That's exactly what I needed, thanks a lot :-)
Worked like a charm !
Jc
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 01:55:48PM -0400, Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
>> I know we can pass -Wl,option, -Wa,option from gcc down to as and ld
>> however if I have to w
Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
Not sure we should spam this list even more with such non-technical
discussions, but since you are asking:
legal reasons. The default disclaimer is nonsense, it is hard to fin
On 23 April 2010 23:19, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
>
> I do know that the legal system of GCC is nearly impossible to change (we
> all remember how getting the runtime license of GCC compatible with plugins
> took so long) but I believe it is one of the weaknesses of GCC. My feeling
> is that the
Richard Kenner wrote:
>>> I've happened to be looking at a number of other
>>> free-software projects recently (having nothing to
>>> do with compilers) and find the quality of the code
>>> ABSOLUTELY APALLING. The formatting is random and very
>>> hard to read. There are almost no comments. Ther
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:58, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 23 April 2010 22:44, Michael Witten wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:36, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>> In any case, I think coming from you it is a bit hurtful because I
>>> have personally fixed many of your bugs and I haven
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
> This seems to be the question running around the blogosphere for several
> projects. And I would like to ask all people that read this list but
> hardly say or do anything.
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
The last time that I attempted to contribu
> My rule of thumb: good code is largely self-documenting.
Maybe. But good code can't give the SPECIFICATIONS of a function,
just it's implementation. I don't believe there's any substitute
for putting comments in front of a function to say what the function
is SUPPOSED to do. That's only in th
legal reasons. The default disclaimer is nonsense, it is hard to find an
employer willing to sign a sensible disclaimer, and even when you have a
nice employer it can still take months (years?) to get things through the
FSF.
If it takes a long time, please contact r...@gnu.org or as
My personal opinion is that this legal reason is a *huge*
bottleneck against external contributions. In particular, because
you need to deal with it *before* submitting any patch, which,
given the complexity (4MLOC) and growth rate (+30% in two years) of
GCC, means in practice that p
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>
> The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
> trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
> copyright over a change.
BTW, in this aspect there is no difference between GCC and LLVM. The
latter als
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 17:12, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> I there's no substitute for proper comments.
Oh I agree!
However, I proffer that the need to write a comment is often an
indication for the need to write the code better (and to choose
another programming language).
> good code can't give t
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >
> > The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
> > trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
> > copyright over a change.
>
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 23 April 2010 23:19, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
I do know that the legal system of GCC is nearly impossible to change (we
all remember how getting the runtime license of GCC compatible with plugins
took so long) but I believe it is one of the weaknesses of GCC. My
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, the FSF needs a paper
trail in the case your employer comes back and claims that they have
copyright over a change.
BTW, in this aspect there is no difference between GCC a
Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
The disclaimers are legally necessary though, [...]
The main difficulties I've experienced haven't been with the copyright
assignment itself, but the issues su
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> The real issue is not the copyright disclaimer, it is the legal terms
> inside. Maybe U.Illinois don't use words like "unlumited liaibility".
Where are you getting this term "unlimited liability" from?
I think that your legal
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Basile Starynkevitch
wrote:
> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>>
>> On 23 April 2010 23:19, Basile Starynkevitch
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do know that the legal system of GCC is nearly impossible to change (we
>>> all remember how getting the runtime license of GCC compatib
Joe Buck wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:05:47PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
The real issue is not the copyright disclaimer, it is the legal terms
inside. Maybe U.Illinois don't use words like "unlumited liaibility".
Where are you getting this term "unlimited liability" from?
I think
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
I don't see LLVM+CLANG as a threat. I see it as a stimulating competitor, and I
hope core GCC developers and potential contributors see it that way.
My dream for GCC is to beat LLVM+CLANG, not emulate it.
I agree, and I would even add that if LLVM+CLANG happens to win, i
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> In my own perception, the legal status of GCC is *not* the GPL. I
> would be very satisfied if GCC was "only" GPLv3+ (like Linux kernel is
> only GPLv2+). But GCC is not only GPLv3, it is in practice FSF
> copyrighted, with (for big organizations like my employer) *
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 05:08:02PM -0700, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 03:35:26PM -0700, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> >> On 24 April 2010 00:18, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> >>> The disclaimers are legally necessary though, [...]
> >
> > The main difficul
Basile Starynkevitch writes:
> Perhaps someone made a mistake, and it could be me (because I don't
> understand lawyer language). Apparently, the sensitive sentence in the
> document is something like "Developer will indemnify FSF for all
> losses if the claim is not spurious".
That is not unlim
> Perhaps someone made a mistake, and it could be me (because I don't
> understand lawyer language). Apparently, the sensitive sentence in the
> document is something like "Developer will indemnify FSF for all losses
> if the claim is not spurious".
>
> In my remembering, the "all losses" was i
> > or what
> > would happen if the FSF or RMS decided to make all GCC code base
> > proprietary (my limited understanding is that RMS or the FSF could
> > relicense GCC under a non-GPL compatible license).
>
> This turns out not to be the case. The language of the copyright
> assignment says cle
On 24/04/2010 01:04, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> I repeat, what is scary to lawyers is the
> "*unlimited* liability" words of the copyright transfer to FSF. [If the
> legal documents specified a very large, but limited amount, like
> US$100M, I would imagine lawyers would perceive the FSF copyri
> That is not unlimited liability. That clause says that if you
> contribute code which you do not own to the FSF, and the correct owner
> of the code sues the FSF, and wins the court case, and the FSF is
> forced to pay damages to the true owner, then you are legally
> responsible to cover the FS
On 4/23/2010 1:05 PM, HyperQuantum wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, HyperQuantum wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
The lack of time, for the most part.
I submitted a feature
On 24/04/2010 02:46, Richard Kenner wrote:
> So you do have a situation here where the company is being forced to
> trust its employee.
Oh, teh horror! :-O
cheers,
DaveK
On 24/04/2010 02:39, Tim Prince wrote:
> The average time for acceptance of a PR with a patch submission from an
> outsider such as ourselves is over 2 years,
By "average", do you mean that you have taken records of many different
patch submissions from many different "outsiders", measured the
ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
>> That is not unlimited liability. That clause says that if you
>> contribute code which you do not own to the FSF, and the correct owner
>> of the code sues the FSF, and wins the court case, and the FSF is
>> forced to pay damages to the true
> > Yes, but there is no limit to the "costs of damages and the cost
> > of litigation". THAT'S the concern being expressed.
>
> But, as I outlined, there is a limit. This is not patents. This is
> copyright. Copyright law does not provide for unlimited damages. I
> agree that there is no lim
I have been lurking on this list for many years, probably a decade.
I like the progress of GCC and its technology, esp. algorithms and data
structures,
which are exciting.
Yet, I do not contribute to GCC due to my priorities in life and not due
to any other technicality. There is family, work,
80 matches
Mail list logo
