On 4/13/2021 12:01 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 11:24 PM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 4/12/21 5:32 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
Please concentrate on the important things, we're supposed to get a
release of GCC 11 out of the door.
Then it is important this is
Sorry for the slow reply ...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 22:59, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> I noticed this section on "Backwards Compatibility" in the libstdc++
> docs that talks about
>
> - glibc 2.0.x
> - GCC 3.2 (August 2002)
> - GCC 4.1 (February 2006)
>
> and links to "Migrating to GCC 4.1" and "M
On 13/04/21 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ wrote:
Sorry for the slow reply ...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 22:59, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I noticed this section on "Backwards Compatibility" in the libstdc++
docs that talks about
- glibc 2.0.x
- GCC 3.2 (August 2002)
- GCC 4.1 (February
On 13/04/21 16:37 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 13/04/21 16:19 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ wrote:
Sorry for the slow reply ...
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 22:59, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
I noticed this section on "Backwards Compatibility" in the libstdc++
docs that talks about
- glibc 2.0
Agreed. I'd bet AIX is the outlier here and that most, if not all,
other ports that may currently be stabs-by-default can switch to
dwarf-by-default with no significant fallout. So we fix everything we
can while we wait for AIX to move forward.
I am not requesting a continuation of support
On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite
possibility here
Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM, thus rendering
GCC irrelevant and ruining an
On 4/13/2021 10:52 AM, Thomas Koenig wrote:
On 13.04.21 16:40, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
An EGCS-like split like we had in the late 90s is, IMHO, a definite
possibility here
Such a move would, in all probability, leave both parts of the split
GCC with too few developers to compete against LLVM
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on what
I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with EGCS. But
that's precisely why I want folks to chime in, particularly those doing
the day-to-date development work --
On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on
what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with
EGCS. But that's precisely why I want folks to chime in,
partic
Hello,
Sorry for slight delay. Very happy if i could prepare prototype of this
solution.
My best guess is if we could hookify all target code everything callable
either from frontends or midend, we could try to severly cut this estimate.
I also went back to thread you memtioned, i underestimated
Hello,
Im multiyear gcc user on many targets. I love the project and wish it all
the best.
Im also senior c/cpp and linux sw devel with 20 years of experience.
Im observing an rms controversy from some perspective and here are my
thoughts:
-you didnt base attack on real data but allegations. Addit
On 14.04.21 01:41, Jeff Law wrote:
On 4/13/2021 11:32 AM, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
On 13.04.21 19:19, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote:
I'm not sure there'll be that much of a community split. Based on
what I've seen *so far* it'd be less of a split than we had with
EGCS. But that's precisely wh
12 matches
Mail list logo
