Hello,
My name is Radu Hobincu, I am part of a team at "Politehnica" University
of Bucharest that is developing a massive parallel computing architecture
and currently my job is to port the GCC compiler to this new machine.
I've been looking over the GCC official site at http://gcc.gnu.org/ but I
Hi Radu,
Check both the GCC Wiki and the work done at IIT Bombay:
http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/grc/reach.html
Activities->Workshops
They developed some tutorials on porting GCC and writing new backends, such as:
http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/grc/gcc-workshop-09/
http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~uday/gcc-mini-
On 23 April 2010 22:49, Michael Witten wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, this is off-topic, and stop trying to incite people to fight,
>> in this and other threads, please. It is not the first time you do it.
>> If you just hate gcc so much, just leave. Thanks,
>
> I don't know what you're talking about.
Prob
Hi Radu. I found the MMIX backend to be quite useful. It's
reasonably small and acceptably up to date. Keep in mind that the
MMIX is a 64 bit machine though.
The Picochip and ARM are good as well. The ARM port is very
complicated due to the number of targets that it supports but fairly
clean o
On 24 April 2010 02:05, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> 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
> But again, in this aspect there is not (or there should not be) any
> difference between the GCC and LLVM, except for the process itself, which I
> am starting to see that it is more problematic than I thought.
But there is nothing new, this has been so for decades. And this prevented
neither
On Friday 23 April 2010 22:36:21 Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> (...). In the free-software world, you can actually help to fix it.
> (...) we need more contributors. Wanna help?
i haven't so much free time (c++work/family/studies) for learn internal
gcc structures and non-trivial design to start f
Hey,
are these documents, copyright assignment and employer disclaimer,
publicly available in the WEB or do I need to explicitly request these
documents?
I plan to start contributing in the near future and I'm currently in the
process to get the approval from my employer. After getting the c
Thanks a lot for your help. At least I know that something is happening.
--
Artem
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> 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. Th
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Andi Hellmund wrote:
> Hey,
>
> are these documents, copyright assignment and employer disclaimer, publicly
> available in the WEB or do I need to explicitly request these documents?
>
> I plan to start contributing in the near future and I'm currently in the
> process to ge
Manuel López-Ibáñez writes:
>What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to read
it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point. Why should
put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even unlikely liabilities,
just
Like many people it seems I've read the gcc lists for many years but
never contributed. I am an embedded developer using GCC on x86 and ARM.
- GCC works really well, i've never found a serious GCC bug so there is
nothing that i have had to fix. No "itch to scratch".
- When i modified GCC for
The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to
read it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point.
Why should put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even
unlikely liabilities, just so my patches can merged into the
official source distribution?
> The university of Illinois is in the same legal position as the FSF
> and they probably have good lawyers too, so the terms are with almost
> certainty similar. Perhaps someone made a mistake during your process
> or they sent the wrong papers or whatever. But again, in this aspect
> there is not
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright
>
> The relevant form is normally request-assign.future. I don't know if the
> document that the FSF will send you when you send them
> request-assign.future is available online (there are certainly various
> forms that aren't in
>The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to
>read it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point.
>Why should put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even
>unlikely liabilities, just so my patches can merged into the
>official source dist
While compiling our Weather Forecasting code with the latest trunk, I
got the following (don't know how long this has been a problem, as I
haven't tried -flto recently):
lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at
lto-symtab.c:549
Please submit a full bug report,
with prepr
On 24 April 2010 12:39, Paweł Sikora wrote:
> On Friday 23 April 2010 22:36:21 Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
>
>> (...). In the free-software world, you can actually help to fix it.
>> (...) we need more contributors. Wanna help?
>
> i haven't so much free time (c++work/family/studies) for learn inte
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
And who has free time? I am not your boss or your customer, and you
are not mine. Raising awareness about existing bugs is one thing.
Demanding (some people angrily) that they get fixed is another. This
is something that I didn't understand completely until I started
c
On 24 April 2010 14:12, Ross Ridge wrote:
> I can have my own patched version of GCC that does what I want without
> signing anything.
Then we change that code and your patch is broken. Or your patch has a
bug and you never find out. Or we decide to remove something essential
for your patch to wo
On 24 April 2010 15:26, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> The big reason the copyright assignment. I never even bothered to
>> read it, but as I don't get anything in return there's no point.
>> Why should put obligaitons on myself, open myself up to even
>> unlikely liabilities, just so my pa
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> It wasn't my intention to be hostile just to state the obvious: If you
> feel gcc is doomed, why are you still in this list repeating this
> mantra over and over? does it make you feel better? how is that not
> trolling?
I don't think
On 24 April 2010 16:23, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't my intention to be hostile just to state the obvious: If you
>> feel gcc is doomed, why are you still in this list repeating this
>> mantra over and over? does it make yo
I have a script that allows me to do the following in a single step:
gccfarming cleanup
gccfarming bootstrap
gccfarming patch PATCH=mypatch.diff
gccfarming bootstrap
compare_tests clean.log mypatch.log
That seems useful, could you post a copy of it somewhere?
On 24 April 2010 16:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> I have a script that allows me to do the following in a single step:
>
> gccfarming cleanup
> gccfarming bootstrap
> gccfarming patch PATCH=mypatch.diff
> gccfarming bootstrap
> compare_tests clean.log mypatch.log
>
> That seems useful,
On 24 April 2010 16:39, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 16:34, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> I have a script that allows me to do the following in a single step:
>>
>> gccfarming cleanup
>> gccfarming bootstrap
>> gccfarming patch PATCH=mypatch.diff
>> gccfarming bootstrap
>>
"Radu Hobincu" writes:
> I've been looking over the GCC official site at http://gcc.gnu.org/ but I
> couldn't find an official porting tutorial. Is there such a thing? And
> maybe a small example for a lightweight architecture?
I don't know of a tutorial, but I want to make sure that you are
loo
Thank You, Manual and Joel
I'll try to choose smth appropriate to start.
I am a little confused by the term:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F
"3. AND at least one free software project you are a contributor of. "
I have accepted patches (well, very small and very obviou
On 24 April 2010 17:00, Дмитрий Дьяченко wrote:
> Thank You, Manual and Joel
>
> I'll try to choose smth appropriate to start.
>
> I am a little confused by the term:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F
> "3. AND at least one free software project you are a contributor of.
Hello
On 24.04.10, you wrote:
> I don't know of a tutorial, but I want to make sure that you are
> looking at the internal docs: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/ .
> They include the information you need for a new port, though not
> organized as a tutorial.
I know only Porting GCC for Dun
Hi,
Taking a slightly different tack on this. One of the things
we at RTEMS have taken away from Google Summer of Code
is that your project has to be approachable to new users
from your target audiences. You want to minimize the
barrier to entry for each type of users. For us, this
was experien
On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Gary Funck wrote:
> What is the recommended process for having GUPC reviewed
> (and hopefully, subsequently approved) for being merged
> into the GCC mainline?
Are there any fixes / enhancements you need in common GCC code? If
so, submitting those first and separately might ma
On Sat, 2010-04-24 at 19:00 +0400, Дмитрий Дьяченко wrote:
> Thank You, Manual and Joel
>
> I'll try to choose smth appropriate to start.
>
> I am a little confused by the term:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CompileFarm#How_to_Get_Involved.3F
> "3. AND at least one free software project you are a con
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> While compiling our Weather Forecasting code with the latest trunk, I got
> the following (don't know how long this has been a problem, as I haven't
> tried -flto recently):
>
> lto1: internal compiler error: in lto_symtab_merge_decls_1, at
> lt
On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I am stepping down as the spu backend maintainer since Sony removed
> GNU/Linux (OtherOS) support from their newer PS3 firmware. The main
> reason is I will no longer have access to a machine to support the
> target. But really this is also a step back
Hi James,
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010, James Miller wrote:
> We would like to raise an HTTP GCC mirror on our dedicated server in
> Canada and I would be very grateful if you provided me with
> instructions.
you can just start by mirroring our server and then advise us of it
via the last paragraph at htt
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Dave Korn wrote:
> But I agree with this: a release announcement is just an email someone
> sends out after a new release is uploaded, it is not a major PR effort
Let's not underestimate the effect our releases have in terms of PR
and how much GCC actually is in need of PR.
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I see plugins as a new feature for GCC developers. There is little
> value in announcing "we have plugin support" to our users if you can't
> name at least one that is supported out-of-the-box (and obviously we
> don't support plugins at all).
Our
Quoting Manuel López-Ibáñez :
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 c
Why do I not contribute to GCC? Well, I tried to get some really simple
patches for RDOS
accepted in 2006, but it seemed to take forever. I'm not sure if they have
been accepted now,
or if the binutils patches (which were accepted) are still there. For
somebody wanting to support
a new OS with G
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
I tried this a while ago, but ultimately gave up because I could not get my
patches in. Some were applied, but many never made it. Admittedly they were
perhaps not of general interested, there were only improving compatibility
of the gcc base wit
On 04/24/2010 02:07 PM, Leif Ekblad wrote:
Why do I not contribute to GCC? Well, I tried to get some really simple
patches for RDOS
accepted in 2006, but it seemed to take forever. I'm not sure if they have
been accepted now,
or if the binutils patches (which were accepted) are still there. For
s
* Richard Kenner:
> Now let's suppose some company claims my patches violate their copyright.
> What happens? In the GCC case, they can't come to me since I no longer own
> that code. They sue the FSF, who defends the case. If they lose (because
> I DID, in fact, violate somebody's copyright),
On 04/24/2010 02:35 PM, Thomas Neumann wrote:
What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
I tried this a while ago, but ultimately gave up because I could not get my
patches in. Some were applied, but many never made it. Admittedly they were
perhaps not of general interested, there wer
> > Now let's suppose some company claims my patches violate their copyright.
> > What happens? In the GCC case, they can't come to me since I no longer own
> > that code. They sue the FSF, who defends the case. If they lose (because
> > I DID, in fact, violate somebody's copyright), the FSF now
On 24 April 2010 21:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> There is definitely a workflow problem though. I have
> had patches I submitted through Bugzilla which didn't
> get reviewed until I was asked to submit them to
> gcc-patches. And vice-versa. A triage team and
> tracking system might have prevent
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 21:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> There is definitely a workflow problem though. I have
>> had patches I submitted through Bugzilla which didn't
>> get reviewed until I was asked to submit them to
>> gcc-patches. An
On 24 April 2010 22:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> We had a patch tracking system, and it was completely ignored by most
> maintainers.
But *submitters* did use it until it went down. So it was useful for
tracking unreviewed patches, not for improving reviewing. Right now, I
have no way to check
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>> On 24 April 2010 21:48, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>>
>>> There is definitely a workflow problem though. I have
>>> had patches I submitted through Bugzilla which didn't
>>> g
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 24 April 2010 22:28, Steven Bosscher wrote:
>>
>> We had a patch tracking system, and it was completely ignored by most
>> maintainers.
>
> But *submitters* did use it until it went down. So it was useful for
> tracking unreviewed
On 24 April 2010 22:37, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> We had a patch tracking system, and it was completely ignored by most
>> maintainers.
>
> Indeed - we do not need another piece of infrastructure. Note that good
> patch review takes a lot of time and we (unfortunately again) do not have
> man
On 24 April 2010 21:35, Thomas Neumann wrote:
>> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
> I tried this a while ago, but ultimately gave up because I could not get my
> patches in. Some were applied, but many never made it. Admittedly they were
> perhaps not of general interested, there we
OK, now that stage3 is over I'm thinking of updating the
MaverickCrunch FPU fixes (currently for 4.3) and merging them but
would appreciate some guidance.
There are 26 patches in all and I can't expect anyone to understand
them because they require a good understanding of the FPU and its
hardware
On 24 April 2010 22:46, Martin Guy wrote:
> OK, now that stage3 is over I'm thinking of updating the
> MaverickCrunch FPU fixes (currently for 4.3) and merging them but
> would appreciate some guidance.
I think you should send a new email with a different subject to gcc@,
otherwise this thread go
Richard Guenther wrote:
Indeed - we do not need another piece of infrastructure. Note that good
patch review takes a lot of time and we (unfortunately again) do not have
many active patch reviewers. So it happens that patches from people
with excellent track history get approved quickly but ot
On 04/24/2010 04:27 PM, Andi Hellmund wrote:
Richard Guenther wrote:
Indeed - we do not need another piece of infrastructure. Note that good
patch review takes a lot of time and we (unfortunately again) do not have
many active patch reviewers. So it happens that patches from people
with e
Ian Lance Taylor wrote, On 15/03/10 03:12:
Jon writes:
How long is it until back in stage 1 development phase?
Reasonably soon, I hope, but there is no specific schedule.
Hi Ian,
Just wanted to ask if it had been possible to integrate the patch.
Would it be useful for me to create a bugzi
On 25 April 2010 00:19, Jon wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote, On 15/03/10 03:12:
>>
>> Jon writes:
>>
>>> How long is it until back in stage 1 development phase?
>>
>> Reasonably soon, I hope, but there is no specific schedule.
>
> Hi Ian,
> Just wanted to ask if it had been possible to integrate
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20100424 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20100424/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Hi,
I'm currently implementing a few type-generic macros in C with
__builtin_choose_expr and noticed the following:
1) The documentation does not mention if const_expr has side-effects.
One may, for example, use the return type of a function call; I expect
the expression to not be evaluated. The
On Apr 23, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
> 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
On Apr 23, 2010, at 3:35 PM, 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 th
62 matches
Mail list logo
