On Fri, 13 May 2005, dmdlf wrote:
> I note that you have a wiki from 27 January 2005.
> It is made known by a line in the News/Announcements, which will disappear at
> some time, and anyway is not always the first reading for people.
> I suggest that, when the state of the wiki will be mature enoug
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> the page for entering new bugs has a big notice "Before reporting a bug,
> please read the bug writing guidelines, please look at the list of most
> frequently reported bugs, and please search for the bug." so those for
> individual bugs could have a
On Tue, 17 May 2005, Joel Sherrill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For future reference, where patches should be sent is explained here:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
> OK .. and Bugzilla or http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html references that link how?
I'm not sure we should add a link to lists.html fro
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I do not know if it is entirely because of the patch to build libjava
> one-directory-at-a-time. If it is, you should thank me :-) for the
> patch, and rth for reviewing it very quickly.
In any case, I'll note that you fixed the libjava build on FreeB
On Fri, 20 May 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> And, I would like to ask that our webmasters, in there copious spare
> time :-), work on automatically generating more of this content. The
> bug lists and such could be automatically generated, even if some
> subsequent refinement is required.
This
I just applied the following patch and will update the gccadmin account
on gcc.gnu.org after tomorrow's snapshot of GCC 4.1 has been made. (The
new schedule is more in line what we originally had.)
Gerald
2005-05-21 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* crontab: Spre
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> the GCC Timeline doesn't seem ok: a wide 'internal version' field and
> 4.0.0 completely missing. Is this a known issue?
I'll see what I can do about the formatting, but the missing release
is a feature (so that our release managers do not have to perfor
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> I'll see what I can do about the formatting,
> Thanks!
I installed the following patch.
Gerald
Streamline the reference to our binaries page. Remove references to egcs
internal version numbers.
Index: releases.html
==
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Maybe you may want to have a look to web/21679 too, anyway, I think Dave
> Abrahams has a point.
I installed the patch below. If this is not sufficient, we could
consider creating a download page of its own, though this would add
yet another level of in
On Fri, 27 May 2005, R Hill wrote:
> a tiny detail, but i figured i would mention it. congratulations.
Thanks, I just installed your patch.
Gerald
On Sat, 28 May 2005, imacat wrote:
> This is imacat from Taiwan. I was downloading GCC 3.3.6. I saw it
> was signed by PGP key 902C9419, and it displayed its owner as Gabriel
> Dos Reis. But I can't find any other public source that can prove this
> key as her/his, not even on GCC website ht
On Sat, 28 May 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| Gaby added his key to the website now, but I agree that we should make
>| sure the keys are sufficiently well signed by other members of the free
>| software (or open source) community.
> I'm a bit surprised because I uploaded my new key last december
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Olly Betts wrote:
>>> This page mentions the website :
>>> http://www2.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard/po/registry.cgi?team=index
>>>
>>> while www2.iro.umontreal.ca has no DNS resolution.
>> It does resolve now; but then the webserver returns a 302 redirect to the
>> same URI at w
On Sun, 29 May 2005, Brian Dessent wrote:
> Also, the link "GCC Frontend HOWTO" on readings.html is 404 compliant.
Thanks, I just installed your patch. Keep this patches coming! :-)
Gerald
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> Given the recent problems with the 4.0.0 release and major packages like
> KDE and the kernel, has anyone considered testing releases by completely
> compiling a Linux system?
Are you sure nobody is doing this? Or to phrase it differently: have
you c
On Mon, 30 May 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Apparently they estimate the probability of a == x succeeding at 42%
> for some reason (This is true at all opts levels, with and without SSE
> math). Why this isn't 50%, who knows.
Might be related to the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
Gerald
Consider the following program, which resides in a directory different
from $HOME. Call it test.c, and put an empty test.h into $HOME.
#include "test.h"
#include
int main() { printf("hi"); }
If one tries to compile this, GCC issues an error (So far so good):
% gcc x.c
x.c:1:18: test
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> It would help also if you add to the wiki explanation of what exactly all
> these options do. Especially bubblestrap vs quickstrap vs restrap.
Why to the WIki?? This should be part of the regular documentation,
and if anything is to improve, the improve
ch will cause
the web page to be updated within 24 hours.
2005-06-26 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* doc/install.texi (Specific): Do not specify the concrete
versions of GCC provided by Cygwin. Simplify the part on
building on Cygwin.
Once GCC 4.0.1
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, Joe Buck wrote:
> The reason for this (making the g++ script compile .c files as C++) is
> historical; in the early days Stroustrup used the .c extension for C++ as
> well, apparently because he had ambitions of displacing C with C++, so
> in the early days that's what users ex
Hi Karl,
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Karl Berry wrote:
> You should substitute `i686
> ' in the above command with the appropriate processor
> for your host.
> Thanks for the report, I'll work on fixing that.
have you had a chance to look into this? It's certainly not a top
priority
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, wangxiuli wrote:
> gcc some errors appear when compiling gcc-3.4.4 and gcc-4.0.0 on i386
> freebsd -5.2.1.those errrors are caused by byacc's convention of
> arguments .how to solve them?
In addition to what Zack wrote: you may want to use the lang/gcc34 and
lang/gcc40 ports
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Is it true that nobody wanted to approved GCC-3.3.6 release
> announcement? :-/
I believe Jeff Law and Mark Mitchell are the two list admins with
approval rights; it might be a good idea to generally add release
managers.
Gerald
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> 2005-06-26 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * doc/install.texi (Specific): Do not specify the concrete
> versions of GCC provided by Cygwin. Simplify the part on
> building on Cygwin.
>
> Once
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I was thinking we maybe should just copy the checked in project list
> from the wiki, remove the duplicates (IE struct aliasing part I and II,
> etc), and add a news item saying:
>
> "GCC 4.1 stage 2 is now closed. The following projects were
> contribut
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Here's a patch.
Thanks.
There are a couple of commas between items missing (usually when
there is a line break) and some of the lines are too long (as with
GCC sources we generally prefer lines no longer than ~77 characters).
Is the new stack checking i
I noticed that the Wiki is getting more and more of a third place where
to find documentation in addition of gcc/doc and wwwdocs, and a parallel
universe at that, with quite some duplication and inconsistencies.
The Wiki is a nice idea for project lists, "Hot Bugzillas" lists and
similar, but
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I find it sad that you are complaining that people have created
> a resource *they* find useful, instead of one that *we think they
> should find useful*.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that I am not responsible for
gcc/doc/*.texi as such. The main
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 1. Every developer i've talked to who wants to work on gcc finds our
> current docs not useful, both the wwwdocs and the texinfo ones. Not
> because they are out of date, but because they don't give them
> information on what they really want to know.
I
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> HowToPrepareATestcase was submitted but never reviewed which is why it
> moved to the wiki.
It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg0032
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> It was reviewed the very same day it was submitted:
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00313.html
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00321.html
> where you said:
>> (and possibly to your tutorial as a separate page if
>>
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> Perhaps the wiki could automatically send all changes to gcc-patches to
>> assist in review?
> I strongly support this (and was going to suggest this myself). I'd rather
> it be another list though, say wiki-patches or doc-patches, because of the
> amoun
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Another idea that was coined on IRC is to have reviewing and commit
> after approval rules for the user manual, but to allow patches to the
> internals manual in without review. Is that something people are
> willing to consider and discuss?
I think t
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Franz Fritsche wrote:
> The page http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html should be updated.
> - Entries of recent releases GCC 4.0.0 and GCC 4.0.1 are missing.
>
> In addition the headline of the table should be changed to:
> "Please refer to our development plan for releases past 4.
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Unless we are going to require reviewing for wiki changes now, too,
> there is no point in this entire discussion.
I beg to disagree: first, we again raised the GFDL issue with RMS,
we may have some new volunteers to help with web pages/documentation,
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> No, I have no such plan. (And the branch has seen no much development
> recently)
But you still plan on working on it later? Do you think cvs.html
could be updated, one way or the other to reflect the current status
and plans?
Gerald
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
> If GCC4 causes this much problem with X, I wonder what GCC4 will do to
> the Linux kernel.
Current combinations of the Linux kernel and GCC 4.0 seem to work just
fine, as far as I can tell.
Gerald
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Mike Stump wrote:
> I had a friend call up and ask where he could find the gcc-4.0.0 tarball. I
> did a quick survey of the GNU FTP mirrors and only 1 out of the first 7 had
> gcc-4.0.0 on it. :-( At least some of the GNU mirrors aren't carrying
> gcc-4.0.0.
Is the situatio
This weekend 4.1 snapshot installs two new info files, hacking.info and
vmintegration.info.
I believe these are related to the classpath import last week. Do we
really want/need these installed as part of a regular GCC install? If
so, are the names sufficiently conflict-free? What happens, if
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> How about now?
Thanks for the update, Dan!
I saw that I had forgot to preapprove this in my previous message, so I
went ahead an installed the patch right away (after updating the date and
removing the "Thanks" part which we haven't doing historically
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> his weekend 4.1 snapshot installs two new info files,
>> hacking.info and vmintegration.info.
> We don't want these. I'll disable this one way or another.
Great, thanks.
> I have a few other minor cleanup fixes from this merge too; I'll get
> them all in
Installed. If you prefer a different summary (I haven't changed the
existing one), please let me know.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.508
diff -u -3 -p -r1.508 index
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, FX Coudert wrote:
>> Don't folk run the gfortran testsuite???
> No. People don't regtest with gfortran enabled. That's a pity, since it only
> adds little time to the total build and testing time.
I believe on of the reasons people often do not build with gfortran
enabled is
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We have been in Stage 3 for a little while now. I'm sure a few more
> patches that were proposed in Stage 2 will find their way into 4.1,
> but we're approximately feature-complete at this point.
I just committed the following update for our main page.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> Jack Howarth pointed out to me that when you look at the archives for
> the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/current/,
> you get this header:
>
> This is the mail archive of the [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list for the
> Fortran 9
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The FAQ is badly in need of an update - in fact, it should be moved
>> over to the Wiki (http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCJ) in order to be easier
>> to update and maintain.
> Great idea, I agree.
> We've had a lot of trouble with bit-rot of the main pages over th
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> We may to want to wait until we hear about the outcome of discussion
>> on the copyright (assignment) aspects of the Wiki vs wwwdocs and gcc/doc,
> We are not the first nor the last project to have a wiki that needs to
> move documentation from the wiki
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> As per a recent conversation with Steve Kargl on the fortran list, I'm
>> submitting this patch, which adds a small "Documentation" section to
>> the gfortran "home page", right below the "Binaries" section.
> Oh, bother. I just noticed that I failed to
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> For code.
> I have never seen such claims made for documentation, since it's much
> easier to remove and deal with infringing docs than code.
I have seen such statements, by RMS himself.
Gerald
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Steve Kargl wrote:
>> I was waiting for a gfortran maintainer to comment -- if it's fine
>> with them, it surely is fine with me.
> The patch is fine. I was going to commit it, but real life
> has taken over and gfortran is way down the list of important
> things to do.
It's
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> I guess the web pages should be updated with something like the attached?
Yes...
> This looks fine to me. Thanks! Perhaps even cvs.html should mention
> that tree-profiling was almost fully merged and retired?
...and, yes. ;-)
Minor comments for the o
On i386-unknown-freebsd4.10 I started to see the following part of the
bootstrap go into an endless loop (that is, not terminating after more
than a day and being killed via a system ulimit):
ASM_HIDDEN_OP='' \
GCC_FOR_TARGET=' ./xgcc -B./ -B/sw/gcc-current/i386-unknown-freebsd4.10/bin/
-isyste
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> This should been already fixed by:
> 2005-08-15 Sebastian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> PR 23386
> [...]
> What is happening here is we were miss-compiling a finite loop to be an
> infinite loop.
Thanks for the pointer, Andrew.
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
> This is nonsense. I have a dozen cross-compilers on this box, all
> installed into /usr. They do not collide as long as you configure with
> --enable-version-specific-runtime-libs and
> --program-{prefix,suffix,transform-name} and make slight adjustments
> after in
We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the
installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems).
install -m 444 ./libgcc.a
/prefix/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3.4.5/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.4/3.4.5/
ranlib
/prefix/lib/gcc/i386-portbld-freebsd5.
Installed.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.514
diff -u -3 -p -r1.514 index.html
--- index.html 24 Aug 2005 19:04:13 - 1.514
+++ index.html 31 Aug 2005 19:24
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
ranlib is basically never required on a modern system. It is really
only needed if the archive is built with the S option to ar.
>>> If you consider Darwin "modern", then that statement is not correct
>>> as moving/copying an archive on darwin
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Another alternative would be to set RANLIB=: before configure if your
> system does not need to ranlib anything.
Thanks for the nice hint - this is what the FreeBSD Ports Collection
now uses for the lang/gcc34 to lang/gcc41 ports. ;-)
On Fri, 2 Sep 200
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Jonathan wrote:
> i could become a mirror if you want
>
> i'm from rome italy
> the server is in Arezzo Italy
>
> i have 3 domains that you could mirror though if u wanted
> let me know please :)
>
> win.ac3bf1.com
> lnx.ac3bf1.com
> rjn.it
>
> P.S. = send me the files t
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> In summary, I think that splitting GCC optimization efforts between FSF
> and ORC back-ends is unfortunate. I would far rather that the free
> software community be united behind a single optimizer. But,
> fundamentally, I don't see much that we can do
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> It may of course be necessary to make changes to the live crontab for
> testing before checking them in, but once tested they should be posted to
> gcc-patches and checked in.
I agree. That was a temporary workaround I had to do and then I failed
to
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Nix wrote:
>> mudflap is an offender as well, see Bugzilla #18244 (libmudflap
>> installs include/mf-runtime.h in version-independent path).
>>
>> Java has libdata/pkgconfig/libgcj.pc and include/ffi.h.
>>
>> And, like the man pages, the info files do not honor --program-suff
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I suggest you to double check also the list present in this mail:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg01625.html
>
> This was never publically approved, but it reflects views of many GCC
> maintainers. Surely it does not hurt to follow those g
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
>> I see that I reviewed it with two days back then. Not everything I
>> could/can approve as web pages maintainer (because it looks like
>> policy changes), but I see that about half of the changes I only
>> had minor editorial comments on.
>>
>> Would yo
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Huh? What does "Red Hat" have to do with anything? "Red Hat" doesn't
> provide the tools. Cygwin is a volunteer effort.
According to http://cygwin.com/license.html (and the link from there)
Red Hat does provide tools for some set of users at least
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I think it depends a lot on timing; the sooner 4.1 ships the less
> inclined I would be to do another import. I want to see 4.1 ship with
> a reasonably up-to-date class library, though; for one thing the more
> recent the library, the more apps we can run.
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>| We currently perform the following sequence of commands as part of the
>| installation (-m 444 being the default on current FreeBSD systems).
> I can not see where freebsd could be getting a -m 444 from. The libraries
> are always installed with INSTALL_
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, george young wrote:
> On the web page:
>http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html
>
> the link:
> http://strawberry.resnet.mtu.edu/pub/gcc/
>
> fails: "The requested URL /pub/gcc/ was not found on this server"
Thanks for the hint!
Paul, shall I remove the link from our mirrors
In accordance with the two maintainers of the sh port (Alexandre
Oliva and Joern Rennecke) the steering committee is happy to extend
Kaz Kojima's maintainership from the current sh-linux-gnu to also
include "sh: libraries, configure.gcc, Makefiles".
Congratulations, Kaz! Would you mind updating y
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> BTW, where is the appropriate place to add it in the MAINTAINERS
> file? Is it enough to modify the currnet line like this?:
The current line is under "OS Ports"; have you considered adding a
new, third line for sh to the "CPU Port Maintainers" section?
Ge
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Like this?
Yes -- and you can also include configure.gcc and Makefiles. ;-)
Gerald
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kaz Kojima wrote:
> Ah. There is no room to include all, though. :-) How about
>
> sh libraries/configuryKaz Kojima [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ?
Looks fine.
Gerald
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Frank Ned wrote:
> I have space to mirror GCC.
>
> What I need do to contribut with GCC project?
>
> name of the server: absoluta.org
> path to the GCC mirror: /gcc
> country/city: Brazil/BrasÃlia
Thanks for the offer to mirror our site. http://absoluta.org/gcc does not
se
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Richard Guenther wrote:
> If it is at all possible we should probably try to keep read-only CVS
> working (and up-to-date) for HEAD and release-branches.
That would be great. It would allow me to continue my nightly bootstraps
on some guest account without interruption.
On
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnSetup has the following example for
checking out the GCC sources under "Checking out a tree"
svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
but this doesn't work for me. Rather, I'm getting:
% svn co svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk
Permission denied (publickey
On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I just updated the cvs/svn shell on gcc.gnu.org. It now has the ability
> to add a v2 key to the system:
>
> ssh gcc.gnu.org 'updatekey' < ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub
>
> This will add the id_rsa.pub to the authorized_keys file on gcc.gnu.org.
> It will,
On Fri, 27 Oct 2005, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> our configure/build system really should be clever enough to
>> automatically set pkgdatadir to the correct value in the first
>> place: $(prefix)/libdata/pkgconfig on FreeBSD, and $(libdir)/pkgconfig
>> elsewhere.
> Are there other places where we try to
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I should probably note again that i don't plan to convert wwwdocs to svn
> right now, because the checkout scripts are a bit hard to follow, etc.
Per se there doesn't seem to be as much of an advantage for wwwdocs
as we had for gcc (no branches, most c
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> If I compile source code using GCC, that does not require me to
>> open-source the resulting program under the GPL, correct?
> Compiling a program with GCC does not by itself cause the resulting
> executable to be covered by the GNU General Public Licen
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Gerald, is this patch OK for svn.html?
Sure! Thanks for the summary and the patch, Diego.
(I believe someone still needs to update projects/ia64.html; as far
as I can see, it's quite a bit out of date...)
Gerald
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Osku Salerma wrote:
> Not sure what you mean by "have the branches locally" (SVK?), but a
> plain rename of a branch doesn't force new check-outs, people can use
> svn switch to point their working copies at the new branch name.
As far as I can experienced, svn switch does hav
Hi Anton,
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, Anton Titov wrote:
> I've set up a new gcc mirror in Sofia, Bulgaria
>
> ftp://mirrors.host.bg/gnu/ftp/gnu/gcc/
> http://mirrors.host.bg/gnu/ftp/gnu/gcc/
as far as I can see this is a mirror of ftp.gnu.org, not gcc.gnu.org?
Note that on our mirror lists we only ma
I installed the two patches below, in lign with your status report
and plans for 3.4.5 and 3.4.6.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.527
diff -u -3 -p -r1.527 index.html
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Eric J. Goforth wrote:
> I misunderstood what this list was for and ended up on it. No
> instructions on the messages on how to get off and I don't' remember
> where I went to get on.. Can someone point me? Thanks.
Every message on this list carries the following headers:
Is anyone seeing this? With current 4.1 sources, on a machine with "only"
1GB of main memory + 1GB swap, the following part of `make install`
Adding java source files from srcdir '/cvs/gcc/trunk/libjava/classpath'.
Adding java source files from VM directory /cvs/gcc/trunk/libjava
/tmp/OBJ-120
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, FX Coudert wrote:
> PS: I'm amazed that a "GNU project" can have exactly two developers,
> release source snapshots every two years, adopt the too common attitude
> of "every non-i686-linux platform is not mainstream", and so on.
There is a difference in focus between the Fre
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> We try really hard not to disrupt the normal flow of GCC development.
> For any large build/integration changes we contact Mark Mitchell as
> release manager, but should probably also more often post a note to the
> main gcc list in the future.
That would
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| I also notice we have a "Releases" link under "About GCC" in the top
>| left corner of the main GCC page that doesn't look like it has been
>| updated in quite a while for any releases. Should this be updated or
>| removed?
> As for 4.x, it is not cle
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> As in the previous round, please consider every weekly snapshot from
> gcc-3_4-branch as a release candidate for testing.
>
> Schedule:
>
>The tentative release date is end of February 2006.
>
>I'll make official prerelease tarballs on Februa
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Yes, they're collectively pretty clueless. However, in the midst of
> that /. interchange I did see one posting that made a relatively good
> point: If you go to gcc.gnu.org, you will see "Current release series:
> GCC 4.1.0".
>
> For the uninformed,
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The branch is open for regression fixes only as I restated in the Dec
> 1st message. Do you have a particular patch in mind that did not fix
> a regression?
Most of Volker's patches didn't state they were regression fixes on the
gcc-patches submission
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, David Daney wrote:
> After the 4.1 branch was created there appears to be no way to navigate to:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.1/changes.html
>
> from the gcc.gnu.org home page.
Now there is. ;-)
Thanks for the hint; I just installed the patch below.
Gerald
Index: index.h
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> 2005-09-21 Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> * lib/split-for-gcj.sh: Cut list to 3 package levels deep.
> I reversed this (patch attached) and now my build with ulimit -v45
> passes. But the total virtual memory usage didn't drop that
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Yes. "make bubblestrap" is now called simply "make".
Okay, how is "make bootstrap-lean" called these days? ;-)
In fact, bootstrap-lean is still documented in install.texi and
makefile.texi, but it no longer seems to be present in the Makefile
machiner
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Mike Stump wrote:
> :-( I think we should remove all traces of any search that doesn't work.
I agree with that and plan to do so next week, once the server hosting
my GCC trees is online again.
> It has never been any good, so I don't think it is a real loss.
This is not fa
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Richard Kenner wrote:
>> A wiki page that has the mapping from the old style to the new style
>> targets is appropriate. I know that I'll hit the, what is x called
>> now, and I too will be at a loss. Going back and reading the email
>> archives to find it would be
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm opening a new branch and would like to request some assistance
> updating the online material. Specifically, how do I add the branch
> information to http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#devbranches. Also, would it be
> possible to create an associated pr
Tomas,
On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Tomas Bily via RT wrote:
> I filled and posted FSF assignment (with an employer disclaimer) back
> to FSF via mail half year ago. Did you received it ?
I found the following in the copyright file on the FSF network:
GCC Tomas Bily United States 2005-
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Jon Brisbin wrote:
> I'm trying to install the GCC 4.1 snapshot from Dec 23, 2005 on my
> FreeBSD box. I'm trying to try out gcj. The installation fails,
> complaining about not enough virtual memory. I just added another 2GB
> swap file on this box. I now have 1GB of physic
the ,v files; in SVN I believe we did
not want to allow for fixing commit messages a posteriori -- how
about our Git setup? Policy-wise and practically?
Gerald
== from gcc-patches ==
From: Gerald Pfeifer
To: gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.org
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:15:28 +0100 (CET)
Subject
101 - 200 of 883 matches
Mail list logo
