On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:49:36AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case
> of major unexpected problems.
>
> Joseph's recommendation for having the old objects/refs in the new repo
> makes a lot of sense. So if it works, it's got my support
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:02:20PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> At the Cauldron this weekend the overwhelming view for the move to GIT
> soon was finally expressed.
[ cutting and pasting a bit ]
> There should be NO CHANGE to the other processes and policies that we
> have, eg patch
On Sep 21 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:49:36AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case
>> of major unexpected problems.
>>
>> Joseph's recommendation for having the old objects/refs in the new repo
>> makes
Hi!
On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 01:08:50PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> I'm currently trying to add -Wshadow=local to the gcc build rules.
> I started with -Wshadow, but gave up that idea immediately.
>
> As you could expect the current code base has plenty of shadowed
> local variables. Most are
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Sep 21 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:49:36AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >> With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case
> >> of major unexpected problems.
> >>
> >> Jos
On Sep 21 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 11:39:38AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Sep 21 2019, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 09:49:36AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> >> With the SVN repo going read-only it becomes our fallback plan in case
> On Sep 20, 2019, at 9:18 PM, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:07:59PM +, co...@sdf.org wrote:
>> Introducing the reversed jbb* patterns doesn't seem to help with the
>> original issue. It crashes building libatomic.
>
> My loose understanding of what is going on:
> - G
On 9/19/19 10:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
All my Fedora 30 builds on x86_64 today have gotten stuck on
index0-out.x spinning indefinitely. I build and test all
languages, including Go, so I'm wondering if anyone else who
builds Go sees th
Snapshot gcc-9-20190921 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/9-20190921/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 9 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-9
Have you had a chance to try this?
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 2:39 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
>
> How does this do for you?
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 7:15 AM Matthias Klose wrote:
> >
> > I'm running into some issues building LTO+profiled enabled configurations in
> > some constrained build environme
On 9/21/19 2:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 9/19/19 10:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
All my Fedora 30 builds on x86_64 today have gotten stuck on
index0-out.x spinning indefinitely. I build and test all
languages, including Go, so I'm wonde
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 4:43 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> On 9/21/19 2:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > On 9/19/19 10:56 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>>
> >>> All my Fedora 30 builds on x86_64 today have gotten stuck on
> >>> index0-out.x spi
12 matches
Mail list logo
