On Mon, Oct 3, 2022 at 2:22 PM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
>
>
> On 9/8/22 12:30, Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> > On 02/09/2022 14:22, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 2, 2022 at 11:50 AM Jørgen Kvalsvik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I played some more with odd programs and the effect o
https://mailinternetsub.com/ru.takara/pub/mail/click.php?tag=sender.eyJSRUNJUElFTlRfSUQiOiI3MzQxNDAifQ%3D%3D&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmarket-place.su%2F%3Futm_source%3Dcoldr%26utm_medium%3Ddojim%26utm_campaing%3Dmailbox6%26utm_content%3Dtextlink0%26bx_sender_conversion_id%3D734140%26utm_source%3Dnewsletter
Hi,
Presently, GCC supports target address spaces as a GNU extension (cf.
`info -n "(gcc)Named Address Spaces"`). This is however supported
only by the C frontend, which is a bit sad, since all the GIMPLE
machinery is readily available and, moreover, LLVM supports this GNU
extension both for C an
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 7:15 AM Paul Iannetta via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Presently, GCC supports target address spaces as a GNU extension (cf.
> `info -n "(gcc)Named Address Spaces"`). This is however supported
> only by the C frontend, which is a bit sad, since all the GIMPLE
> machinery is readi
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 09:52:45AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 7:15 AM Paul Iannetta via Gcc wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Presently, GCC supports target address spaces as a GNU extension (cf.
> > `info -n "(gcc)Named Address Spaces"`). This is however supported
> > only by
Hi Siddhesh,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers
wrote:
> > We do take this proposal, and all other suggestions people make about
> > the sourceware infrastructure, seriously, but a lot of details of this
> > proposal are still unclear. We are trying to get
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>...But it would be really nice to hear directly from the Linux
>Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are proposing, which
>parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be mixed and matched,
>and how they see this workin
On 2022-10-06 16:02, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I had in fact missed the websites mention, sorry I overreacted to your
comment. In that case, I don't know if the GNU websites are actually part
of this proposal.
No worries. It seems everybody is somewhat unclear on the details of
this proposal. Makin
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
(generated from g...@gnu.org)
host gcc.gnu.org [2620:52:3:1:0:2
> This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
>
> A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
> recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:
>
> gcc@gcc.gnu.org
>(generated from g...@gnu.org)
>host gcc.gnu.org [2620
Hi -
> [...] Or alternatively, "sourceware overseers" could become a body
> that maintains sourceware and is able to get funding through SFC for
> its activities?
Great idea -- and this is roughly what's happening. This "body"
consisting of key individuals has invited other folks interested in
h
On 2022-10-06 16:12, Christopher Faylor via Overseers wrote:
The silence from the proponents of this project is puzzling. I wonder
if this means there are more non-public negotiations going on somewhere,
leaving the community out of the loop.
The proponents of this project are members of the G
On Oct 4, 2022, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha"
wrote:
> What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the
> LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being
> redirected to its own managed services infrastructure?
Hear, hear,
I see a number of people, mys
On 2022-10-06 17:36, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...] Or alternatively, "sourceware overseers" could become a body
that maintains sourceware and is able to get funding through SFC for
its activities?
Great idea -- and this is roughly what's happening. This "body"
consisting of key individuals has
Snapshot gcc-10-20221006 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/10-20221006/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 10 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
I am trying to improve code generation for coremark to match a recent
improvement that was made in LLVM.
I added the following transformation to match.pd which attempts to
replace a branch with straight line code:
/* (cond (and (x , 0x1) == 0), y, (z ^ y) ) -> (-(and (x , 0x1)) & z ) ^
y */
Hi -
> [...] so that we continue to have them involved in the technical
> direction of GNU toolchain infrastructure? [...]
"continue"? If the nature & degree of involvement we had so far in
the LF/GTI process is representative of the future, I'm not sure I can
in good faith ask anyone to fund o
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 4:00 PM Michael Collison wrote:
>
> I am trying to improve code generation for coremark to match a recent
> improvement that was made in LLVM.
>
> I added the following transformation to match.pd which attempts to
> replace a branch with straight line code:
>
> /* (cond (and
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:57:40PM -0400, Michael Collison wrote:
> I am trying to improve code generation for coremark to match a recent
> improvement that was made in LLVM.
>
> I added the following transformation to match.pd which attempts to replace a
> branch with straight line code:
>
> /*
Hi.
I contribute to gcc outside of work, but I'm about to sign a new work
contract which contains a work ownership clause saying that I give the
ownership to the company of any work not listed in some appendix.
What exactly should I list to make sure my contributions to GCC are not
affected by thi
20 matches
Mail list logo
