98, it is! (was: C++ PATCH: PR 28261)

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: > This patch fixes PR c++/28261, an ICE-on-invalid when an > enum-definition appeared in an constructor parmeter declaration. Unless I'm mistaken, this means we are down to less than 100 serious regressions! (Richi has been giving me the current number t

Re: GCC 4.2 branch created; mainline open in Stage 1

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Robert Schwebel wrote: > I don't understand yet how the next steps for 4.2 will look like; will > there be further snapshots (ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/) of the > 4.2 branch, or will the next snapshots be only for 4.3? The GCC 4.2 snapshots will now track the 4.2 rel

Re: gcc trunk

Hi Murali, On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Murali Vemulapati wrote: > what is the release number for gcc trunk (mainline)? currently there > are two branches 4.2.0 and 4.3.0 which are accepting patches. we tried to provide this information on our main web page at http://gcc.gnu.org. If this does not relay

Re: memory benchmark of tuples branch

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > Having analyzed about 8000 functions taken from Diego's .i sandbox (includes > GCC files, spec files, and a potpourri of other .i files), here are the > average memory savings: > > -O0:-0.243863% > -O1:-0.977962% > -02:-0.9

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.1+ and MPFR 2.2+. Try the > --with-gmp and/or --with-mpfr options. Indeed, as a user I ran into problems with this on a system where both of these actually were installed. This is because I had the run-t

Re: gcc trunk

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Brooks Moses wrote: > I would say, on looking at it, that the order of items under "Status" is > slightly confusing; it seems to me that "Active Development" ought go > next to "Next Release Series". That's a good point. >From a user perspective, how about Current (4.1)

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Do we have a GCC FAQ somewhere? Maybe we can add GMP/MPFR build problems > and solutions there. You can add your experiences to that collection. , but I believe increasing the "intelligence" of configure and documenting al

RE: gcc trunk

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Dave Korn wrote: >> From a user perspective, how about >> >> Current (4.1) >> Previous (4.0) >> Next (4.2) >> Active development (4.3) > Let's be user-centric. Us developers can be expected to cope. Okay. ;-) Nobody else chimed in, so I went ahead and committed the p

Re: Abt long long support

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > gcc always supports "long long" for all targets. I just noticed that while the base compiler may support "long long", this extension fails to interact well with at least one other extension: hash_map<> in libstdc++. Specifically, the following exampl

PATCH for Re: Missing web link

Bruce, On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Bruce Korb wrote: > I was going to re-subscribe my dropped subscription to gcc-patches, > but the only links (that I can find) on gcc.gnu.org lead to the archives, > not to the subscription page. Thanks - Bruce I understand your immediate issue has been addressed alre

Re: 4.1.1 spec files missing, FAQ misinformation

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>> "This file can be found in the same directory that >>> contains cc1 (run gcc -print-prog-name=cc1 to find it)." >> I think that indicates someone trying to be overly clever when they >> configured your gcc package. Normally libdir and l

Re: Announce: MPFR 2.2.1 is released

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Gerald, would you please copy the mpfr-2-2.1 tarball to the gcc > infrastructure directory and delete 2.2.0 and the cumulative patch from > there? Thanks. http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/mpfr-2.2.1.tar.bz2 Sure -- done it is. Gerald PS: I will most p

Re: compile time testsuite [Re: alias slowdown?]

Hi Richie, On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Richard Guenther wrote: > Public monitoring would be more useful. If you have working single-file > testcases that you want be monitored for compile-time and memory-usage > just contact me and I can add them to the daily tester > (http://www.suse.de/~gcctest/c++

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Hi Kaveh, On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > I'm wondering, can we can solve this with a better error message? That > should tickle enough brain cells to hopefully lower the chance of someone > being bit by this. Let me know your thoughts. yes, this definitely looks like a very good a

Re: compile time testsuite [Re: alias slowdown?]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Diego Novillo wrote: > With the exception of DLV and SPEC2000, we could probably add most of > them to the check-compile testsuite. I don't know if Gerald would be > able to allow DLV to be included. I am, unfortunately, not able to make it completely public but if further

Re: poisened macro definitions

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Markus Franke wrote: > I want to port an existing backend (based on version gcc-2.7.2.3) on the > most recent release (gcc-4.1.1). During compilation process I get > several messages about some poisened macro definitions. The macros which > make problems are listed below: In ad

Re: should fastjar be built?

On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Jack Howarth wrote: > I noticed that fastjar no longer appears to be built and installed on > darwin in gcc 4.2 branch or trunk. What is the status of this utility > for gcc? It was removed earlier this year: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2006-q1/msg00381.html Geral

Re: configuration options policy (at toplevel or only inside gcc/)?

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > I really think that such information should go into GCC internal > documentation, where I was not able to find it out. Do you believe > that some of the descriptions in this thread and in the Wiki page just > cited should go into the documentation?

Re: Question on BOOT_CFLAGS vs. CFLAGS

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html > The counter quote is obviously wrong, thanks for the report. If I see this correctly, Mike's quote came from our installation documentation in gcc/doc/install.texi. Are you going to have a stab at that, based o

Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006, Robert Dewar wrote: > If you do it in signed expecting wrapping, then the optimization > destroys your code. Yes, it is technically your fault, but this > business of telling users > > "sorry, your code is non-standard, gcc won't handle it as you > expect, go fix your code" M

Re: [PATCH] Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: > If you want to make a patch, and Gerald approves it, it's fine by me. > But, fwprop is described as a new feature (faster compiler, better > code), and the build system affects people building the compiler. The > change we're talking about seems to affec

Re: GCC optimizes integer overflow: bug or feature?

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Here is a quick list of optimizations that mainline gcc performs which > rely on the idea that signed overflow is undefined. All the types > are, of course, signed. I made have made some mistakes. I think this > gives a good feel for the sorts of op

Re: changing "configure" to default to "gcc -g -O2 -fwrapv ..."

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >|> for (i = 1; i < m; ++i) >|> { >|> if (i > 0) >|> bar (); >|> } >| Of course, this is an example where either the programmer is doing >| something very silly or else is expecting overflow and depending on >| wrap semantics, so it

Re: mpfr issues when Installing gcc 3.4 on fedora core

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Matt Fago wrote: >>From: drizzle drizzle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>svn -q checkout svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk gcc_3_4_6_release > This is checking out the latest trunk, not version 3.4. The last argument > only changes the name of the directory name on your local machine. T

PATCH for Re: 3 new GCC mirrors

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Marco Rinaudo - Internet.bs Corp. wrote: > I am pleased to announce 3 new GCC mirrors located in London (UK), Hong > Kong and Toronto (CANADA), daily resync. Thanks! These servers seem to be well connected. > Please feel free to add the 3 mirrors to the official list of mir

Re: Retiring IPA-branch

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Jan Hubicka wrote: > I would hope to retire that branch, since it has gained a lot of > dust and also a lot of things has been renamed while merging to mainline > making it outdated. I assume you will update svn.html accordingly once this is done... > At the end of stage 1 I w

Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

This is something I've had on my disk for a few months; committed and also activated on gcc.gnu.org. In case anyone wonders, the reason why some snapshot was created earlier during the day was due to me debugging something at one point. :-) Gerald 2007-01-05 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL P

Closing the GCC 4.0 branch (was: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule)

[ omitting gcc-patches ] On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0). If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps, which include: 1. Updating o

Re: proposal to clean up @node Warning Options in invoke.texi

Chris, I see you have not received any response to this yet, so let me give it a try. On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Chris Pickett wrote: 1. Create a default section, at the top, and put all options enabled by default there. This sounds like an interesting proposal. Gaby, Joseph, what do you think?

Clarify policy on documentation changes [wwwdocs]

I just committed the patch below which clarifies that maintainers are allowed to make/approve changes to those parts of our documentation that are related to their area of maintainership. This is not a change in policy, just a clarification, but since there has been some uncertainty in this area

Re: Mis-handled ColdFire submission?

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:56:48PM -0700, Tom Tromey wrote: >> The patch tracker would help with that. >> >> I noticed recently that contribute.html doesn't seem to mention the >> patch tracker. Is there a reason for this omission? > I guess no one submitted

-Wconversion versus libstdc++

I noticed that -Wconversion now issues warnings in libstdc++. For now I have opened two bug reports, and I plan to continue testing and file further bug reports once these have been fixed but I wonder if anyone plans to do a more systemastic set of checks? libstdc++/30463 [regression] -Wconve

Re: RFC: Extending --help

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Nick Clifton wrote: > What do you think ? I like this idea. (Not the least because it will help verify answers/questions that are coming up regularily among users and in discussions on the gcc lists even.) Gerald

Re: -Wconversion versus libstdc++

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007, Paolo Carlini wrote: > All in all, I think we can definitely add casts to the library, would be only > a few tens of lines worth of patch, I think. Whether the warning is useful to > the entire GCC community, I cannot say... But I hope we can resolve the issue > rather quickly,

Re: Jan Hubicka and Uros Bizjak appointed i386 maintainers

On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, David Edelsohn wrote: > I am pleased to announce that the GCC Steering Committee has appointed > Jan Hubicka and Uros Bizjak as co-maintainers of the i386 port. That's good timing. ;-) i386 (but not i686) has started failing to bootstrap a few days ago -- bootstrap/30467. Ge

[wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html points to non-existing source http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-SVN/

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Ben Elliston wrote: >> I found out that page http://gcc.gnu.org/svnwrite.html points to >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-SVN/ mailing list but it doesn't exist. It's >> in section "Write access policies" above "Free for all" subsection. >> It seems that correct list is http://gcc.

Re: Running GCC tests on installed compiler

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007, Dominique Dhumieres wrote: >> So please use contrib/test_installed > This script seems quite outdated: it tests g77 and not gfortran, even with > the latest 4.3.0 snapshot (20070112). As I was primarily interested in > the gfortran tests, I replaced g77 by gfortran everywher

How to enforce the use of libjava/scripts/jar?

Looking at libjava/configure.ac, I understand that we only use and install libjava/scripts/jar.in if no version of jar nor fastjar is already present in $PATH: AC_CHECK_PROGS([JAR], [jar fastjar], no) AC_PATH_PROG([ZIP], [zip], no) AC_PATH_PROG([UNZIP], [unzip], unzip) AM_CONDITIONAL(

Re: raising minimum version of Flex

On Mon, 21 Jan 2007, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > That doesn't sound right. It see flex being run every time I create a > new object directory, even though I don't modify the flex input files. > We ship gengtype-lex.c with releases, so people building the compiler > from releases shouldn't have to wo

Re: How to enforce the use of libjava/scripts/jar?

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> My question now is: Is there any way to enforce the use and installation >> of our own copy of ${PREFIX}/bin/jar${PROGRAMSUFFIX}? > Set JAR to no before configuring. Works like a charm. Thanks for the hint, Andreas! Gerald

Re: How to enforce the use of libjava/scripts/jar?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Tom Tromey wrote: > I think we should never install the jar script -- we now have a gjar > tool from Classpath which we can use. On svn trunk we do build and > install this, for native systems (I think to avoid mixing host and > target executables in bindir). I think we shoul

Re: [RFC] Our release cycles are getting longer

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Diego Novillo wrote: There was some discussion on IRC that I would like to move to the mailing list so that we get a wider discussion. There's been thoughts about skipping 4.2 completely, or going to an extended Stage 3, etc. Thoughts? I believe that going forward we sho

[PATCH for] Re: gcc-4.0-20070128 is now available

itself. Done thusly. I also updated the gccadmin account on gcc.gnu.org. Gerald 2007-01-29 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * crontab: No longer build snapshots for 4.0.x. Index: crontab === --- cronta

Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

I can no longer build libjava on a machine with "just" 512MB of main memory (FreeBSD/i386 5.4 in this case). Three weeks ago the build worked on that very machine; did we raise our minimum requirements or is this simply a bug? Gerald echo /sw/test/GCC/trunk/libjava/classpath/lib/gnu/javax/swin

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: > 78.67user 1.29system 1:20.01elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k > > and indeed, it does want a lot of memory - at peak some 550m. It'll > be smaller on a 32-bit box, but not much smaller. Ouch. I can confirm that on a 32-bit box of mine it

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: > Can you tell us a bit more about the config? It really shouldn't be > failing to compile this program. The tester where this problem first surfaced as a 32-bit Athlon machine, with 512MB main memory and 1GB swap. The machine runs FreeBSD 5.4. I agree w

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > The tester where this problem first surfaced as a 32-bit Athlon machine, > with 512MB main memory and 1GB swap. The machine runs FreeBSD 5.4. > > I agree with your intuition that even if the machines is swapping heavily, > this am

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > I'd be curious to know the effect of removing the "complexity" field of > struct tree_exp. It should be possible to bootstrap C/C++/Java/Fortran > with a two line patch removing the field from tree.h, and the only > reference to it in tree.c (via the m

Re: Failure to build libjava on 512MB machine

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> I'd be curious to know the effect of removing the "complexity" field of >> struct tree_exp. > Doesn't work: > > trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c: In function 'tsubst_expr': > trunk/gcc/cp/pt.c:8924: error

Re: meaning of --enable-checking flags

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Larry Evans wrote: [snip] I tried downloading and editying http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html; however, I soon ran into problems. Attached is a diff between the original .html and the modifications I tried. It shows that even the comments in config.in are confusing :(

Re: GCC mirror set up in Germany

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Sascha Schwarz wrote: > To support your efforts we put up a mirror on our website Cybermirror.org > under http://gcc.cybermirror.org. Thanks, but this currently gets me a ZUGRIFF NICHT ERLAUBT Die angeforderte Seite darf nicht angezeigt werden. (which translates to "acc

Announcing Kaz as sh maintainer

It is my pleasure to announce that the steering committee has appointed Kaz Kojima maintainer of the sh port. Kaz has already been serving as maintainer for sh libraries/configury, and I know that Alexandre and Joern are in full support of this nomination. Please adjust the MAINTAINERS file acc

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-02-19)

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Brooks Moses wrote: > The 4.2.0 release is fairly significant to GFortran. In my opinion, it's > really the first 4.x release for which we have a mature Fortran compiler FWIW, this is something I have clearly heard from FreeBSD ports maintainers responsible for ports being b

Re: "Installing GCC" documentation: Why a nonstandard title page?

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Brooks Moses wrote: > Given that the _real_ situation seems to be that no two manuals have the > same title format (except for gcc.texi and gccint.texi), are there any > opinions on me coming up with a standard format for this, and proposing > a patch to standardize them? Y

Re: Running GCC tests on installed compiler

[ gcc -> gcc-patches ] Dominique, thanks a lot for your patch. I have tested this on i686-suse-linux, comparing the output of contrib/test_installed both before and after your patch and committed it with the following ChangeLog entry: 2007-02-26 Dominique Dhumieres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: Failed

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote: >> -> http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html >> >> Failed Validation of W3C ! >> >> This page is not Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional ! >> >> >> W3C rules specify that XHTML tags have to be written in lowercase. >> You have just to replace every "DIV" by "div

Re: obsolete maintainers

On Fri, 2 Mar 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > OK. If any of those people decide they want to be listed again, with > new email addresses, they can let us know, and we can put them back. > > You can remove that one too: >> Alex Samuel[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Alex left C

Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-03-04)

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > In addition, there are two trivial doc fixes for GCC 4.2, one in > invoke.texi and another in opts.c, where it says -Werror- and it > should say -Werror= > Can I commit them as obvious or do I need to submit a patch? Both. :-) That is, go ahead and

Re: Failed

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > I investigated a bit, and it seems that unlike gcc.gnu.org, www.gnu.org > lacks the latest revision (at least) of the bin/preprocess script in our > wwwdocs module: > > revision 1.43 > date: 2006/06/10 21:52:24; author: g

Re: Documenting -fargument-noalias-anything in gcc-4.2/changes.html

On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Toon Moene wrote: > I do not have easy access to the HTML repository anymore. That's something we should be able to fix; just drop me (or [EMAIL PROTECTED]) a note! > Martin Michlmayr asked me to add to the 4.2 changes list the inclusion > of the new compile time option -far

[wwwdocs] PATCH for Re: GCC 4.2.0 Status Report (2007-04-15)

Installed. Index: index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.607 diff -u -3 -p -r1.607 index.html --- index.html 23 Mar 2007 08:31:00 - 1.607 +++ index.html 16 Apr 2007 08:51:28 -000

Re: assign numbers to warnings; treat selected warnings as errors

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote: > Not only that, but you can do -Werror -Wno-error=foo, to get errors > for everything except -Wfoo. Also, you can do > -fdiagnostics-show-options to find out which -Wfoo option generates > each warning message. It is unfortunate that this is missing

Bootstrap failure on i386-unknown-freebsd6.2: conflicting types for 'strsignal'

I am trying to track down a bootstrap failure on i386-unknown-freebsd6.2 that was introduced between 48 hours and 24 hours ago, roughly: gcc -c -g -fkeep-inline-functions -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attr

Re: Weeeeee! ;)))

I'll be offline until March 13th. Ich werde bis 13. Maerz offline sein. I will process this and any further messages as soon as possible. Ich werde diese und etwaige weitere Nachrichten so rasch wie moeglich bearbeiten. Gerald Pfeifer -- Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Inlining and estimate_num_insns

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote: >>> You still didn't get into the fun part of actually inlining all the >>> inlines in in Gerald's testcase ;) > It got killed on a box with 4GB of RAM after 11 hours and 43 minutes > with "virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory". In the > lates

Re: dejagnu help needed - tests get confused by column numbers

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Janis Johnson wrote: > There are several workarounds in the GCC testsuite for things that could > be better handled in DejaGnu if the next release of GCC could require a > new DejaGnu version. That might be the right thing to do for GCC 4.1. > Ben Elliston is the DejaGnu maint

Re: RFC: #pragma optimization_level

ooong time since we clarified that: Mon Dec 28 19:26:32 1998 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * gcc.texi (Non-bugs): ``Empty'' loops will be optimized away in the future; indeed that already happens in some cases. Gerald

Re: How is lang.opt processed?

Steve, Toon, On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Steve Kargl wrote: > Jim, > > Thanks for the detailed explanation of how GCC options work. On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Toon Moene wrote: > Ditto. Jim, are you reading from some documentation about this option > processing that I couldn't find ? I've spend hours and

Re: [rtl-optimization] Improve Data Prefetch for IA-64

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, James E Wilson wrote: > Steven Bosscher wrote: >> OK, so I know this is not a popular subject, but can we *please* stop >> working on loop.c and focus on getting the new RTL and tree loop passes >> to do what we want? > I don't think anyone is objecting to this. [...] > I would

Re: ISO C prototype style for libiberty?

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Joe Buck wrote: > Any retro people out there still trying to run SunOS 4.x? Richard K., as evidenced by the missing Reference:s headers in his mails. But I doubt he's actually bootstrapping GCC on that machine. :-} Gerald

Re: "personal" branch?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005, Ben Elliston wrote: > I am doing some academic work on GCC and am finding it hard to manage > my patches locally. Would anyone have any strong objections if I were > to indulge in creating a branch in the FSF repository for little old > me? The volume of my deltas will not be

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#*-*-solaris2*

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dimitri Papadopoulos-Orfanos wrote: > On this page: > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html > there's a link to: > #*-*-solaris2* > but it doesn't work. Instead from what I can undersatnd it should be: > #g_t*-*-solaris2* Hmm, that's interesting, so I'm Cc:

Re: http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html#*-*-solaris2*

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Karl Berry wrote: > Catering to XHTML's stupidity. I mentioned it in: > > http://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#HTML-Xref-Link-Basics > viz. > One exception: the algorithm for node name expansion prefixes the > string `g_t' when the node name

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: >>> Not necessary. If people would simply follow the directions here: >>> by setting > Also, when I click on the link above, it doesn't follow down the page > to the anchor. I'm not sure why that is

Re: install

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Master Faris wrote: > I would like to install gcc on solaris 9 > sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Fire-V440 > > can you give me some directions or where to find instructions please as this > is my first time doing it Please have a look at our website http://gcc.gnu.org, specifically http

Re: 2 suggestions

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > I like prepending a string, for example target= or triplet=, etc. Okay. However,... On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Georg Bauhaus wrote: > If "*-*-solaris2*" should appear as/in the "name" attribute of an , > prepending a name start character is not enough, beca

Re: GCC 4.0 RC1 Available

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote: >> gcc/doc/install.texi still mentions gcc 3.5 in a few places. > Fixed thus (and a similar reference in cpp.texi). It passes "make info", > "make dvi" and "install.texi2html". Applied to mainline and 4.0 branch > (as a doc patch for which the branch

Re: 2 suggestions

patch accomplishes the goal to get rid of asterisks in @anchor names by - replacing components of a target triplet which read "*" by "x", - and omiting trailing asterisks from all other components. Tested by running doc/install.texi2html and selecting every single link in t

Joseph appointed i18n maintainer

It is my pleasure to announce that the steering committee has appointed Joseph Myers i18n maintainer, an area he's been taking care of for quite some time now. Please adjust the MAINTAINERS file accordingly, Joseph, and Happy hacking! Gerald

Re: 2 suggestions

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > This patch accomplishes the goal to get rid of asterisks in @anchor > names by > > - replacing components of a target triplet which read "*" by "x", > - and omiting trailing asterisks from all other com

Re: Vectorizing my loops. Some problems.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Øystein Johansen wrote: > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. > make: *** [neuralnet.o] Error 1 > > Should I report this to the bug database or is this a known bug? And > what is it a

Re: at web: /install/specific.html

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Alec Voropay wrote: > It seems, the local on the GCC web page > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html > does not work due to wrong HTML format. I'm afraid that, originally, I didn't understand what you meant by this, but I believe that I do now and thus I committed a fix f

Re: Packaging error in 4.0RC1 docs? [was RE: Problem compiling GCC 4.0 RC1 on powerpc-ibm-aix5.2.0.0 ]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Dave Korn wrote: >> When I look in gcc-4.0.0-20050410/INSTALL at specific.html > Oh, BTW, it seems the internal links in that page are b0rked in the usual > sort of way, owing to the mangling of 'special' characters. A link like: > > *-ibm-aix* > > doesn't actually link up

makeinfo 4.8 generates non-standard HTML for @emph{..@samp{..}..}

In the GCC documentation (gcc/doc/install.texi) we have the following texinfo snippet @emph{You should substitute @samp{i686} in the above command with the appropriate processor for your host.} makeinfo 4.8 translates this to You should substitute `i686 ' in the above command with the a

Re: at web: /install/specific.html

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Patrick McFarland wrote: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html > I think he meant it has the wrong doctype. That is clearly an xhtml > document, but it has an html4 doctype. If you pass this page through validator.w3.org, you'll see that this is clearly *not* an XHTML

[wwwdocs] PATCH for GCC 4.0 branch open for regression fixes

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote: > The GCC 4.0 branch is now open for regression fixes only, under the usual > release branch rules. Documented thusly. Gerald Index: index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.ht

RE: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/changes.html

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Johan Bergman (KI/EAB) wrote: > Here is a unified diff for the proposed change (I think). Johan, Giovanni, I just noticed that this one apparently feel trough the cracks? I had assumed that Giovanni would just go ahead an apply it since he's an expert in that area and the patc

Re: i?86-*-sco3.2v5* / i?86-*-solaris2.10 / x86_64-*-*, amd64-*-*

ranch. Please allow up to 24 hours until this has propagated to the http://gcc.gnu.org/install/specific.html web page. I tested this patch by running gcc/doc/install.texi2html and also verified that the changed links still work when using makeinfo 4.5 Gerald 2005-05-01 Gerald Pfeifer <[

Re: i?86-*-sco3.2v5* / i?86-*-solaris2.10 / x86_64-*-*, amd64-*-*

On Sun, 1 May 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Thanks for the clear report, Dimitri. I just installed the following > change to mainline (which will become GCC 4.1) and will shortly do the > same on the 4.0 branch. This is the variant of the patch I applied on the 4.0 branch. Gerald 2

Re: i?86-*-sco3.2v5* / i?86-*-solaris2.10 / x86_64-*-*, amd64-*-*

On Sun, 1 May 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > This is the variant of the patch I applied on the 4.0 branch. Sorry, that was a typo: for the 4.0 branch I used exactly the same version as for mainline. This slightly different patch is what I applied on the 3.4 branch. > 2005-05-01 Gerald P

Re: Should there be a GCC 4.0.1 release quickly?

On Mon, 2 May 2005, Michael Matz wrote: > I'm a fan of release early, release often. Really. Even if this means > we would end up with a 4.0.20 after half a year. While I wouldn't be _that_ agressive, on FreeBSD where I maintain GCC in the ports collection, I'm usually tracking our weekly snaps

Re: Revamp WWW review process?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: >> You may not have noticed that Gerald is away until 13 March. Otherwise >> website patches do get reviewed quickly. > I think they are not reviewed quickly enough anyway. I do not have > evidence (statistics) to bring forward, so feel free to ignore my

[wwwdocs] patch for Re: Access to benchmark page from our front page

On Tue, 3 May 2005, Diego Novillo wrote: > ISTR a link from GCC's home page into http://gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks/ > but it doesn't seem to be there anymore. Shouldn't it be on the > index on the left at least? You mean, like the following? Good idea. Installed. Gerald Index: style.mhtml ===

Re: No link to benchmarks page ?

On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is there any link to gcc.gnu.org/benchmarks on the web pages ? Yes, but _rather_ well hidden, to be honest. Thanks for the hint! I just added a pointer to that page from the navigation bar on our main page. Gerald

Re: new bounds-checking patches

On Fri, 6 May 2005, Herman ten Brugge wrote: > I just released 2 new releases for gcc-3.3.6 and gcc-4.0.0 of my > bounds-checking patch. > The patches can be found on http://sourceforge.net/projects/boundschecking > > Can some one update the extension page (http://gcc.gnu.org/extensions.html). > T

Moving the pkgconfig directory from lib/ to libdata/?

Is the pkgconfig directory at the correct location when put under lib/, or shouldn't this be libdata/ instead? I've seen the following patch in use, that's why I'm wondering. Gerald --- libjava/Makefile.in.origTue Aug 31 09:39:04 2004 +++ libjava/Makefile.in Tue Aug 31 09:39:46 2004 @@ -180,

Re: Moving the pkgconfig directory from lib/ to libdata/?

On Wed, 11 May 2005, Roman Kennke wrote: >>> Is the pkgconfig directory at the correct location when put under lib/, >>> or shouldn't this be libdata/ instead? >> What system has $(prefix)/libdata? None I'm familiar with. > The BSDs for example use libdata dirs. I suppose the patch is from a BSD

Properly setting the pkcconfig directory (was: Moving the pkgconfig directory from lib/ to libdata/?)

On Sun, 15 May 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> So I guess I should rephrase $SUBJECT as: How can we properly set the >> pkgconfig directory to $(prefix)/libdata/ for FreeBSD and potentially >> others? > Using $(prefix)/libdata without any doubt would be wrong. By "potentially others" I was referr

Re: Link to GCC Wiki?

On Sun, 15 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The only link to the GCC wiki is the initial Jan 27 > announcement. I think a link to > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ should be added to the > Documention links on the left of the > http://gcc.gnu.org/ page. Indeed I'll make this change and add a link to

Re: [gnu.org #232556] GNU Mirror: SWITCHmirror replaces Swiss SunSITE

On Thu, 5 May 2005, John Sullivan wrote: > I've updated the mirror list on gnu.org. I'm passing this on to you so > you can consider it for the GCC mirrors list as per his request. Thanks. Please note that for http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html we only add mirrors which specifically mirror the ftp a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >