I hate to say this when I don't have the time to fix it myself, but
toplevel of gcc and src is once more out of sync, and this is bad.
I think that we should apply a *very* strict policy of not approving
toplevel patches unless the toplevel files are in sync.
Thanks in advance to anyone that "vol
Hi Paolo,
* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 10:47:18AM CEST:
> I think that we should apply a *very* strict policy of not approving
> toplevel patches unless the toplevel files are in sync.
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone that "volunteers" to fix things...
You beat me by a couple of
Is there a way to rerun only failed tests after a 'make -k check'?
If not, should there be, and how would one go about implementing this
(I know the makefile parts but not the dejagnu bits).
Asking because it could help speed up patch development:
1) hack hack hack
2) make -k check-$whatever
3) go
This is how things look like currently:
There are five patches in GCC not in src, four for toplevel and one for
config/; there are no patches in src not in GCC. There is one
problematic sync.
Not in src:
b9a8e4c49ae2f195c2c0c4646a75f33ff926986f aka r162482
4ae8c98f346e631b735be15b09a41a1a043454
> Other than that, below is the combined patch I intend to commit to src
> unless there are disagreements.
Ok, thanks.
DJ, can you amend your scripts so that the head of gcc/ChangeLog and
src/ChangeLog is included? This will make it easier to bug relevant
people.
Paolo
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Is there a way to rerun only failed tests after a 'make -k check'?
> If not, should there be, and how would one go about implementing this
> (I know the makefile parts but not the dejagnu bits).
>
> Asking because it could help speed up patc
* NightStrike wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 05:47:24PM CEST:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Is there a way to rerun only failed tests after a 'make -k check'?
> > If not, should there be, and how would one go about implementing this
> > (I know the makefile parts but n
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 05:54, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Asking because it could help speed up patch development:
> 1) hack hack hack
> 2) make -k check-$whatever
> 3) go back to (1) until satisfactory
> 4) git commit patch, undo patch in work tree, rebuild
> 5) run 'make recheck' to ensure all new
2010/10/1 Jason Merrill :
> It took me some searching, but yes, it does:
>
> "A type-specifier-seq shall not define a class or enumeration unless it
> appears in the type-id of an alias-declaration (7.1.3)."
>
> Normal declarations don't have a type-specifier-seq, they have a
> decl-specifier-seq.
Currently we have
STACK_BOUNDARY
-- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
-- a preserved alignment greater than what the hw enforces
(defaults to STACK_BOUNDARY)
INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY
-- an alignment provided by callers on function entry.
(defaults to PREFE
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20101002 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20101002/
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
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> Currently we have
>
> STACK_BOUNDARY
> -- minimum alignment enforced by hardware.
>
> PREFERRED_STACK_BOUNDARY
> -- a preserved alignment greater than what the hw enforces
> (defaults to STACK_BOUNDARY)
>
> INCOMING_STACK_BOUNDARY
> --
12 matches
Mail list logo
