Hello!
My name is Carter. I’m looking to become active in the GCC community. I would
of course love to be funded through GSoC (and will most definitely be
submitting a formal proposal) but will contribute regardless of this. I’m
interesting in the OpenACC parts of the posted projects, so helpfu
Hi Pau!
On 2025-03-19T21:53:22-0400, Pau Sum via Gcc wrote:
> Hey GCC Community,
Welcome to GCC!
> I am interested in contributing to the "Enhance OpenACC Support" project for
> Google Summer of Code 2025.
Thanks for your interest!
I saw you also briefly discussed on GCC IRC. I'm logged in,
> You can see what -fuse-linker-plugin says, what gcc/auto-host.h contains
> for HAVE_LTO_PLUGIN. I don't know whether the BFD linker (or mold)
> supports linker plugins on windows. I do know that libiberty simple-object
> does not support PE, that is, at _least_ (DWARF) debuginfo will be subpar.
Snapshot gcc-13-20250404 is now available on
https://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/13-20250404/
and on various mirrors, see https://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 13 git branch
with the following options: git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git branch
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:37 AM Krister Walfridsson
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2025, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 2:23 AM Krister Walfridsson via Gcc
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I have more questions about GIMPLE memory semantics for smtgcc.
> >>
> >> As before, each section starts wi
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your detailed response! I've updated the proposal based on the
feedback. Please kindly check it out. Thanks a lot!
Project Goals and Tasks
GCC currently only partially supports the features specified in OpenACC
2.6. This project aims to enhance GCC's OpenACC support in the
On 23/03/2025 20:26, Toon Moene wrote:
> I had the following message when sending test results to gcc-testresults
> *starting* today (3 times):
>
> Note that the message is generated by *my* exim4 "mail delivery software"
> (Debian Testing) - it is not the *receiving* side that thinks the lines
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> This program exhibits the behavior when compiled with -O2, -O3 and -OS
>
> PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
> PROCEDUREDIVISION.
> MOVE 1 TO RETURN-CODE
> STOP RUN.
Hmm, the call to exit() is still in the progra
On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:35 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 3:06 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
> >
> > This program exhibits the behavior when compiled with -O2, -O3 and -OS
> >
> > PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
> > PROCEDUREDIVISION.
> > MOVE 1 TO RETURN-CO
Thank you. I will implement that hook. And I'll see about that data
definition.
I could try to explain how RETURN-CODE became __gg___11_return_code6, and
why I defined it as unsigned char __gg__data_return_code[2] = {0,0}; But I
have a rule that I try to follow, which is that when I am starti
The COBOL compiler has this routine:
void
gg_exit(tree exit_code)
{
tree the_call =
build_call_expr_loc(location_from_lineno(),
builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_EXIT),
1,
exit_code);
gg_append_statement(the_c
This program exhibits the behavior when compiled with -O2, -O3 and -OS
PROGRAM-ID. PROG.
PROCEDUREDIVISION.
MOVE 1 TO RETURN-CODE
STOP RUN.
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2025 03:02
> To: Robert Dubner
>
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 02 2025, Leul Abiy via Gcc wrote:
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I would like to work on the rust frontend for this summer.
We are delighted you found contributing to GCC interesting.
> I am trying to
> break down all the steps for the first project in the rust frontend. So far
> I plan o
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:20 PM Julian Waters via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I've been trying to chase down an issue that's been driving me insane
> for a while now. It has to do with the flatten attribute being
> combined with LTO. I've heard that flatten and LTO are a match made in
> hell (Someo
On Thursday, April 3rd, 2025 at 10:45 PM, Andi Kleen
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 07:21:47AM +0300, Eldar Kusdavletov wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I’ve submitted a more concrete version of the proposal — attaching
> > it
> > here.
> >
> > I’ve taken a brief look at Clang’s implementation, b
Hi Arijit, Andrew!
Arijit, welcome to GCC!
On 2025-03-11T03:26:44+0530, Arijit Kumar Das via Gcc wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed response! This gives me a much clearer picture
> of how things work.
>
> Regarding the two possible approaches:
>
>- I personally find *Option A (self-containe
On Fri, Apr 04, 2025 at 07:21:47AM +0300, Eldar Kusdavletov wrote:
> Thanks. I’ve submitted a more concrete version of the proposal — attaching it
> here.
>
> I’ve taken a brief look at Clang’s implementation, but the idea isn’t to
> follow
> it exactly — rather, to provide a similar kind of trac
Here is my (potentially naive) understanding of how we may implement bind() and
device_type (probably in a follow-up email) in GCC. These are primary parts of
the project that I am interested in. I would be open to exploring the cache
directive as well though would like to start with a limited s
Hello,
and sorry for a somewhat late reply.
On Fri, Mar 28 2025, Ansh Jaiswar via Gcc wrote:
> Dear GCC Developers,
>
> I am Ansh Jaiswar , a second-year Computer Science student interested in
> compilers and systems programming. I have experience with C/C++ and basic
> knowledge of Rust.
>
> I
19 matches
Mail list logo
