Re: Google Summer of Code

Hi Supriya. On Thu, Apr 04 2019, Supriya Palli wrote: > Hello, > > My name is Supriya Palli and I am a first-year Computer Science B.S. > student at Florida State University. I currently finishing up a C++ course > in Object Oriented Programming and am looking for ways to continue my > learning in

Re: Google Summer of Code

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 04:50, Supriya Palli wrote: > My name is Supriya Palli and I am a first-year Computer Science B.S. > student at Florida State University. I currently finishing up a C++ course > in Object Oriented Programming and am looking for ways to continue my > learning in C++ and other t

Re: Putting an all-zero variable into BSS

On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 9:53 PM Thomas Koenig wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > >> Well, nothing is going to write to it (this is not accessible by > >> user code), so that should not be a problem. > > Then don't make it read-only. > > I tried this, and while it solves the executable size problem, it > ca

Re: GSOC Proposal

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, nick wrote: > > > On 2019-04-03 7:30 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, nick wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 2019-04-01 9:47 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, nick wrote: > >>> > Well I'm talking about the shared roots of this garbage c

non-volatile automatic variables in setjmp tests

Some setjmp/longjmp tests[1] depend on the value of an auto set before setjmp to to be retained after returning from the longjmp. As I understand, this behaviour is actually undefined, according to the gccint manual. Section 3 "Interfacing to GCC Output" of gccint says: If you use longjmp, bewar

[ GSoC ] Add new math.h and complex.h functions as built-ins

Hi, everyone I hope you are all well , with good health I am sending this mail to apply to GCC GSoC for the idea: Add new math.h and complex.h functions as built-ins meanwhile if someone may be my mentor to implement TySan (Type Sanitizer) I would really appreciate it Thanks everyone My Best W

Re: GCC GSOC 2019

On 4/4/19 1:44 PM, Shubham Narlawar wrote: > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 2:13 PM Martin Liška wrote: > >> On 4/3/19 6:31 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: >>> Hello Shubham, >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 29 2019, Shubham Narlawar wrote: Hi, here is my proposal for the above idea. Please review and suggest nece

Re: GSOC Proposal

On 2019-04-05 6:25 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, nick wrote: > >> >> >> On 2019-04-03 7:30 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, nick wrote: >>> On 2019-04-01 9:47 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, nick wrote: > >> Wel

Re: non-volatile automatic variables in setjmp tests

Hello, On Fri, 5 Apr 2019, Jozef Lawrynowicz wrote: > Some setjmp/longjmp tests[1] depend on the value of an auto set before setjmp > to to be retained after returning from the longjmp. As I understand, this > behaviour is actually undefined, according to the gccint manual. > > Section 3 "Interf

is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

Is it safe to rerun make bootstrap after changing GCC source? Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see the same fallout of the change as I would if I did a pristine build in a clean directory? I have been assuming

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 12:55 PM Martin Sebor wrote: > > Is it safe to rerun make bootstrap after changing GCC source? > > Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single > GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see > the same fallout of the change as I would if I d

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

> Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single > GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see > the same fallout of the change as I would if I did a pristine > build in a clean directory? No, this would imply deleting the stage2 and stage3 compilers and that isn't

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On 4/5/19 2:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single >> GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see >> the same fallout of the change as I would if I did a pristine >> build in a clean directory? > > No, this would imply deletin

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On 4/5/19 3:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 4/5/19 2:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see the same fallout of the change as I would if I did a pristine build in a clean directory? No, t

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On 4/5/19 3:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: > On 4/5/19 3:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 4/5/19 2:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see the same fallout of the change as I would

gcc-8-20190405 is now available

Snapshot gcc-8-20190405 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/8-20190405/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 8 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-8

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On 4/5/19 4:02 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 4/5/19 3:37 PM, Martin Sebor wrote: On 4/5/19 3:29 PM, Jeff Law wrote: On 4/5/19 2:50 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote: Say if the first bootstrap succeeds and I then change a single GCC .c file and rerun make bootstrap, am I guaranteed to see the same fallout of t

New Template 3

PRE-LAUNCHPROMOTIONAL PRICE                                        10 Units only !!!BUY BACK OPTION - 7 % GUARANTEE FOR 15 YEARS  Rental Guarantee condition:Special promotion 7% NET (subject to WHT) rental guarantee -NO monthly fee-NO electricity-NO maintenance-NO sinking fundFor 15 years !   <

Re: is re-running bootstrap after a change safe?

On Apr 05 2019, Martin Sebor wrote: > So to be clear: the safe and also most efficient to "rebootstrap" > GCC is to remove what exactly? (I don't see any stage2 or stage3 > directories in my build tree.) Is there a make target for this? make stage1-start; rm -rf stage[23]-* compare Andreas.