I've merged the latest changes from google/integration. Since g/i is
now frozen at the 4.6 branch point, the next merges will be coming
from trunk.
Tested on x86_64.
Diego.
Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cleared
the FSF copyright office. Worse yet, the clerk hasn't responsed to
emails in the past few months. No one s
Jack,
Yes, I've had problems with considerable slowness on my end. The
problem is, I believe, that it's part time and it's a volunteer job,
so don't be too hard on him. He's doing the best he can.
On the other hand, though, the process itself does form a considerable
blocker to getting things
* Jack Howarth:
>Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
> clerk to complete the FSF paperwork?
Yes, it is not just you. I recently experienced something similar
with another GNU project, under similar circumstances.
Snapshot gcc-4.4-20110315 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.4-20110315/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.4 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
Jack Howarth writes:
>Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
> clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
> now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cleared
> the FSF copyright office. Worse yet, the clerk hasn't responsed to
> emails
On 3/15/2011 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Jack Howarth writes:
Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cleared
the FSF copyright office. Worse ye
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 05:03:44PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
>
> >Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
> > clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
> > now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cleared
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:05:37PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>>> Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
>>> clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
>>> now and the revised discla
Robert Dewar writes:
> On 3/15/2011 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>
>>> Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
>>> clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
>>> now and the revised disclaimer that UC sent them still hasn't cle
On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a blanket
dislaimer for all employees at the employer. Give them two options to
sign...one blanket and one for only the specific employee. I have little
sympathy for the copyright office o
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>> FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a blanket
>> dislaimer for all employees at the employer. Give them two options to
>> sign...one blanket and one for only
On 16/03/2011 00:54, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
>> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>
>>> FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a blanket
>>> dislaimer for all employees at the employer. Give them two opt
On 16/03/2011 00:33, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Robert Dewar writes:
>
>> On 3/15/2011 8:03 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> Jack Howarth writes:
>>>
Is anyone else having problems getting the FSF copyright
clerk to complete the FSF paperwork? I am going on six months
now and th
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 01:52:37AM +, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 16/03/2011 00:54, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 08:37:38PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2011 8:11 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> >>
> >>> FSF legal could solve these problems in a minute. Don't shove a
> >>
> Is that the same kind of status that anyone with access to fencepost could
> look up? I thought that the contents of copyright.list were pretty much the
> definitive answer to all status questions.
Definitive, yes, but binary. If it isn't there, it doesn't answer why not
or when it's expected.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
>> Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC:
>>
>> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
>>
>> The major remaining issues are glibc/gcc testsuite failures,
>> kernel core d
Hi,
Almost all x32 bugs in kernel, glibc and binutils are fixed:
https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
There are no unexpected failures in glibc testsuite. I am
working on remaining GCC bugs.
--
H.J.
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC:
> >>
> >> https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/
> >>
> >> The major
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
>> >> Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC:
>> >>
>>
On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:51:37 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> Many
21 matches
Mail list logo
