See the following emails for a few inlined patches
to /trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi:
[1] Docs: extend.texi: Add missing semicolon for consistency
[2] Docs: extend.texi: Remove trailing blanks from lines
[3] Docs: extend.texi: Rearrange nodes; no text was removed or added
[4] Docs: extend.texi
---
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index eddff95..c154958 100644
--- a/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -3997,7 +3997,7 @@
@smallexample
__attrib
sed -i "s/[ $(printf '\t')]\{1,\}\$//" trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
---
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi | 82 ++--
1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index c154958..cdbf69f 100644
The arrangement performed in the previous patch left the text in
somewhat of an inconsistent state; this returns the flow of concepts
to something more sane.
---
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi | 53 +++-
1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff
> However, the same effect of applying this patch can be produced by running
> the following commands on revision 172911 ...
That's not exactly correct; it is naturally assumed that the previous patches:
[1] Docs: extend.texi: Add missing semicolon for consistency
[2] Docs: extend.texi: Remov
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 28 April 2011 00:32, Michael Witten wrote:
>> See the following emails for a few inlined patches
>> to /trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi:
>>...
>
> Patches should go to gcc-patches, not this list.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html
>
I apologize!
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> You also need to explain the reason for your patches.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches
>
> 1 and 2 might be self-explanatory, but what are 3 and 4 for? Why are
> your changes useful?
Thank you for the help; however, I believe
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:48, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 18:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 28 April 2011 00:32, Michael Witten wrote:
>>> See the following emails for a few inlined patches
>>> to /trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi:
>>>...
&g
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> The patch which makes the MPC library a hard requirement for GCC
> bootstrapping has been approved today.
Out of curiosity and ignorance: Why, specifically, is MPC going to be
a hard requirement?
On the prerequisites page, MPC is currentl
estricted version of
'export' (or a cousin of 'export') could be both useful and trivial to
implement: Perhaps a limited form could simply automate the
not-infrequently employed practice of creating a translation unit
specifically for explicit template instantiations.
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> it's extremely
> unlikely that the C++ front-end maintainers could even consider
> reviewing patches from a novice for such an hard to implement feature.
That says more about the tangled mess that is gcc then about any
particular programmer'
g to persuade people to contribute to some other project
> rather than gcc is off-topic here. Even if not, it's pretty hostile.
Chris Lattner of Apple
Chief architect of the LLVM project and Clang.
Andrew Haley of Red Hat
Maintainer of the GCC's Java frontend.
Michael Witten
Preparer of Popcorn.
:-D
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 14:10, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> I've happened to be looking at a number of other free-software projects
> recently (having nothing to do with compilers) and find the quality of the
> code ABSOLUTELY APALLING. The formatting is random and very hard to read.
> There are almos
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 13:39, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> What reasons keep you from contributing to GCC?
I'm really quite the outsider (I don't even deserve to be called a
"lurker"), but my impression is that the common wisdom among the
proles is that gcc is bloated and crufty and everyone is
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:36, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> In any case, I think coming from you it is a bit hurtful because I
> have personally fixed many of your bugs and I haven't seen a
> single beer yet! Where is my beer?
Where's his beer for finding bugs?
gt;> hard to read. There are almost no comments. There are
>>> few, if any, indications of what each function is
>>> supposed to do. And many of these projects have no
>>> documentation AT ALL except for some small FAQs or
>>> Wikis.
Michael Witten wrote:
>&g
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:58, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 23 April 2010 22:44, Michael Witten wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 15:36, Manuel López-Ibáñez
>> wrote:
>>> In any case, I think coming from you it is a bit hurtful because I
>>> have persona
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 17:12, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> I there's no substitute for proper comments.
Oh I agree!
However, I proffer that the need to write a comment is often an
indication for the need to write the code better (and to choose
another programming language).
> good code can't give t
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
wrote:
> There's nothing to have a problem WITH! No assignment has taken place.
> The statement on the web has no legal significance whatsoever. Unless
> the company SIGNS something, they still own the copyright on the code
> and can, at any time, de
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 21:12, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 26 April 2010 02:12, Mark Mielke wrote:
>>
>> All in all, pretty minor. GCC wants FSF copyright assignment and employer
>> disclaimers? GCC will not have as many contributors. Your choice.
>>
>> There are plenty of projects that we (l
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 21:03, Mark Mielke wrote:
> They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does your
> original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy from your
> "free" version of the code, they can continue to use it for "free".
>
> The GPL isn't free t
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 22:47, wuyin wrote:
> Please support this grammar.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/coo/
My advice is to use a language with proper abstraction facilities, like C++.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
there a thread I missed?
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 13:21, Michael Witten wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:22, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> Now that the SC and the FSF have agreed to this.
>
> When did this come up and why? Where can I read more about this? Was
> there a thread I missed?
Nevermind! It
I wanted to create a bugzilla bug report, but I seem to have forgotten
my password; moreover, it would seem that bugzilla isn't actually sending
out password-change emails.
Here's the build error:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o d
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 09:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>
> IMO, we have to bite the bullet from time to time in order to improve
> the generated code.
What's your performance function?
I like backtraces.
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:08, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 09:56, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>
>>> IMO, we have to bite the bullet from time to time in order to improve
>>> the generated
n replaces
one stack frame with another; frame pointer
elimination will stop `backtrace' from
interpreting the stack contents correctly.
Specifically, note the last sentence:
frame pointer elimination will stop `backtrace'
from interpreting the stack contents correctly.
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
It would probably be a good idea to mention:
contrib/download_prerequisites
on this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
and probably on this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
On Thu, 30 May 2013 11:04:55 +0800, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
> 2013/5/30 Michael Witten :
>> It would probably be a good idea to mention:
>>
>> contrib/download_prerequisites
>>
>> on this page:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> The fact that these non-free tools are not based on gcc are a
> testament to how proprietary software developers cannot plug into gcc,
> and how clang is fostering non-free software.
What does it matter whether clang fosters non-fr
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> the... list is for technical rather than political discussion
That's just it; that's the whole point.
The *political* aspects are dictating the *technical* aspects.
So... like it or not, that makes this list exactly the right place to
hav
imple logical negation for `b-=1', it
instead forgos a simple assignment of `1' in favor of the following
bizarre gymnastics for `b+=1':
:
D.984 = (int) b;
b = D.984 != -1;
goto ;
Maybe there's room for a patch?
Anyway, I'm done with my mental pleasuring for the day.
Ta ta!
Michael Witten
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 20:30, mathog wrote:
> Since b-- is equivalent to [assigning] !b,
> and b++ is equivalent to [assigning] 1, if
> that action is intended, there is no reason
> to use either the increment or decrement
> operators on a bool.
However, it seems to me that toggling the value w
bly a good idea, but as with all good ideas,
it will probably not get implemented because most people don't care.
Therefore, I'd suggest writing a patch and submitting it; people will
no doubt be a lot more receptive when you convey your thoughts in
hard-nosed, precise code, ESPECIALLY because that means the work has
already been done!
Sincerely,
Michael Witten
On 25 Jan 2008, at 6:11 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
On 25 Jan 2008, at 8:16 AM, Michael Witten wrote:
On 24 Jan 2008, at 7:20 AM, Brian Dessent wrote:
Michael Witten wrote:
Can I build gcc in this way?
I've been trying for quite some time now to achieve such a
stripped down gcc, b
36 matches
Mail list logo
