Will there be another 4.9 release, too? I'm really hoping that branch
can stay open a bit, since I can't upgrade to the new std::string
implementation yet.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Status
> ==
>
> The GCC 5 branch is open again for regression and documentatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64709
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53119
Would anyone mind backporting these two dependent bug fixes to 4.9?
On https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html about two thirds of the way down:
"As the default mode changed to C11, the __STDC_VERSION__ standard
macro, introduced in C95, is now defined by default, and has the value
201112L."
That should probably be C99.
Reposting from here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2016-05/msg3.html
Not sure if this applies:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
If I compile on a k8 Opteron 248 with -march=native, I do not see
-mprfchw listed in the options in -fverbose-asm. In the assembly, I
see this:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:55 AM, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
>> If I compile on a k8 Opteron 248 with -march=native, I do not see -mprfchw
>> listed in the options in -fverbose-asm. In the assembly, I see this:
>>
>> prefetcht0 (%rax) # ivtmp.1160
>> prefetcht0 304(%rcx) #
>> pre
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 04/05/16 19:20, David Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2016-05-04@18:15 +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
>>>
>>> - It can't be portably disabled; older versions of gcc do not
>>> accept
>>> '-Wno-misleading-indentation'. (At leas
The mirror here:
ftp://mirrors-usa.go-parts.com/gcc/releases/
Does not have gcc 6 from April.
On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Kumar, Venkataramanan
wrote:
> Hi
>
>> -Original Message-----
>> From: NightStrike [mailto:nightstr...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2016 10:31 PM
>> To: Kumar, Venkataramanan
>> Cc: Uros Bizjak (ubiz...@gmail.com) ;
&
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 18/12/16 02:33, Seima Rao wrote:
>> Precisely, stuffs like GENERIC, GIMPLE, RTL, gas(inline assembly),
>> GCC extensions internals, ... and gnu's own debugging tied to gcc
>> (if such exist nowadays), ... are not documented in
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 8:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 30 July 2014 23:18, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> What are you objecting to, calling the next release from trunk 5.0,
>>> and the next one after that 6.0? Or the wording chosen to describe the
>>> new versioning scheme?
>>
>> Let's not start
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:53 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Matt Godbolt writes:
>> GCC's code generation uses a "load; add; store" for volatiles, instead
>> of a single "add 1, [metric]".
>
> GCC doesn't know if a target's load/add/store patterns are
> volatile-safe, so it must avoid them. There are
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 9:24 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2018 at 21:22, Rainer Emrich wrote:
> >
> > Am 30.08.2018 um 14:38 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> > > Thanks for these logs, they're very helpful. Trunk revision r263976
> > > fixes a number of the libstdc++ FAILs (compilation e
Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and run the
testsuite under wine, it all basically works for the most part.
However, the log files get filled with what appears to be ANSI escape
sequences of the form:
^[[?1h^
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM NightStrike wrote:
>
> Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
> Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
>
> When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and run the
> testsuite under wine, it all basically works for the most part.
> However,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:58 PM NightStrike wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > Host: x86_64-pc-linux (Cent 6)
> > Target: x86_64-w64-mingw32 (wine)
> >
> > When I build the linux > w64 cross compiler under linux and r
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:32 AM charfi asma via gcc wrote:
>
> Thank you for your help.
> Yes, It seems that gcj6 is not well installaed.
> Could you please help me to install it ? which installation instruction
> should I follow ?
>
> I can not installed with apt-get
> should I checkout the gc
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019, 2:59 PM Aditya Guharoy
wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to know how to download gcc 9.2 in windows from here.
> https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gcc/gcc-9.2.0/
> Thanks.
>
Https://mingw-w64.sf.net
>
Currently, to build natively on cygwin, this patch is required to zlib:
https://github.com/Alexpux/MSYS2-packages/blob/master/zlib/1.2.11-cygwin-no-widechar.patch
Otherwise, this error occurs:
./../zlib/libz.a(libz_a-gzlib.o):gzlib.c:(.text+0x646): undefined
reference to `_wopen'
./../zlib/libz.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess neither redhat
>>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a
>>> login page but
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> you did for the bugs below is ideal. Adding a test case if one
> doesn't exist in the test suite is also very useful, though quite
> a bit more work.
Isn't a testcase always required?
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 08/14/2017 04:22 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
>>
>> I'm emailing this manually to the list because Bugzilla is down and I
>> can't file a bug on Bugzilla about Bugzilla being down. The error
>> message looks like this:
>
> Bugzilla and the res
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Paul Menzel <
> pmenzel+gcc.gnu@molgen.mpg.de> wrote:
>
> > Dear GCC folks,
> >
> >
> > Some scientists in our organization still want to use the Intel compiler,
> > as they say, it produces faster code,
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:13 PM Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>
>> > They are definitely useful in my day-to-day work when tracking down changes
>> > given I can easily grep them.
>>
>> Seconded.
>>
>> > I think that any change here should be _after
On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 1:48 PM NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:13 PM Eric Botcazou
>> > wrote:
>> >>
On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 07/05/2018 05:02 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> I assumed you just want to remove the ChangeLog files, not change
>> contents.
>> Thus I assumed the commit message would simply contain the ChangeLog
>> entry as we requie it today? In
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Bootstrap is done with msys2 on Windows 7. For the testsuite results see
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-08/msg02651.html
Did you get SEH to work?
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>
> вт, 21 авг. 2018 г. в 20:46, NightStrike :
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
>> wrote:
>> > Bootstrap is done with msys2 on Windows 7. For the testsuite results see
>> > http
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2018 um 04:03 schrieb NightStrike:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov wrote:
>>> вт, 21 авг. 2018 г. в 20:46, NightStrike :
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Rainer Emrich
>&g
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Rainer Emrich
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2018 um 15:24 schrieb NightStrike:
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Rainer Emrich
>> wrote:
>>> Am 22.08.2018 um 04:03 schrieb NightStrike:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Alexey Pavlov
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:43 AM, Dongsheng Song
> wrote:
>> It's very simple (only for trunk, although it maybe more useful for
>> branches):
>
> Or simply put Last-Changed-Date into DATESTAMP, not the
> current date.
This has other bene
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Richard Guenther
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jan
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html
>
> There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which
> don't look platform-depen
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" writes:
>
>> Why do a great many targets disable libgcj by default in the toplevel
>> configure.ac?
>
> I believe that it's just a hack: libgcj doesn't build on the target, but
> gcc/java does. Disabling libgcj lets the
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 29/03/2011 15:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 03:13:07PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> On 28/03/2011 08:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The GNU Compiler Collection version 4.6.0 has been released.
>>> Were there any changes
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Angelo Graziosi writes:
>
>> Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
>>> Angelo Graziosi writes:
>>>
Is there a way to send libiberty.a where go the other libs (i.e
/usr/local/gfortran/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.4.1/, for example)?
>>>
>>> R
Dave,
You checked in r150960 here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-08/msg00642.html
This change affected ltmain.sh:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/ltmain.sh?r1=150960&r2=150959&pathrev=150960
All of those changes to sed now make sed fail miserably on any mingw
host during the build:
libtoo
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
>
> Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
> for other targets?
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
>
>
What is slush?
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Heiko Harders wrote:
> Hello,
>
> (first of all: sorry to post this message to a second list, I've sent it to
> the wrong list at first)
>
> I am using g++ in MinGW-w64 running in a Windows environment. I'm especially
> interested in the c++0x threads because it all
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to fix some errors/warnings to make sure that gcc-as-cxx doesn't
> bitrot too much.
Wasn't that branch already merged to trunk?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> The gcc-in-cxx branch is no longer active. All the work was merged to
> trunk, where it is available via --enable-build-with-cxx.
Is that option regularly tested?
Will it ever become the default?
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:27 PM, IainS wrote:
> I do build gmp/mpfr/mpc in-tree...
How? Last I tried, it didn't work, as mpc used the system gmp/mpfr,
not the just-built in-tree versions. Therefore, it's not really an
"in-tree" build, and you can't build on a system that doesn't already
have gmp
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> As maintainers do not care for P1 bugs in their maintainance area
> so will the release managers not consider them P1.
Probably not the best reason to downgrade a bug, eh?
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM, Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Kai Tietz wrote:
>>> Hello Steering Committee,
>> I raised this on the steering committee...
>
> You've got the hat, Kai, congratulations! Please update the
Currently, gcc doesn't support a multilib build for win64. I have
been looking at how to do this, and have so far come up with a
beginning to a solution. The work done thus far is part of this PR:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38294
The current blocker is in building libgcc. At s
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> Currently, gcc doesn't support a multilib build for win64. I have
> been looking at how to do this, and have so far come up with a
> beginning to a solution. The work done thus far is part of this PR:
>
> http://
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:07 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> Currently, gcc doesn't support a multilib build for win64. I have
>> been looking at how to do this, and have so far come up with a
>> beginning to a solution.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The current system for managing bugzilla priorities has a major problem,
> in that it does not identify bugs that reasonably cannot be fixed before
> the release.
>
> The current set of priorities is in practice like this:
>
> - P1: most wron
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> Given the SC request we need to stay in Stage 4 rather than trying to work
> around it.
What if GCC went back to stage 3 until the issue is resolved, thus
opening the door for a number of stage3-type patches that don't affect
1) licensing
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>> What if GCC went back to stage 3 until the issue is resolved, thus
>> opening the door for a number of stage3-type patches that don't affect
>> 1) licensing and 2) plugin frameworks, but
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Steve Kargl
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 07:46:37PM +0100, Toon Moene wrote:
> >
> > I agree about the bisecting-in-case-of-bugs issue.
> >
> > However, what I see happening in practice is that all GCC developers
> > keep on doing their development work on br
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
>> wrote:
>>> Given the SC request we need to stay in Stage 4 rather than trying to work
>>> around it.
>>
>> What i
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Steven Bosscher writes:
>>
>>> case OPT_mfixed_range_:
>>> @@ -5245,6 +5247,13 @@ ia64_handle_option (size_t code, const char *arg,
>>> if (!strcmp (arg, processor_alias_
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> > The GCC maintainers work on behalf of the FSF and in some matters defer
>> > to the FSF. It's that simple.
>>
>> Yes, but it's not written anywhere that release and especially branching
>> policies are one of this matters.
>
> The matte
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> GCC uses are the ones developed in the egcs days. Remember the old
> days when the location of the development tree and the snapshots was
> a secret, and people were threatened with banning if they let it out?
Are you serious? Why would it be h
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Joe Buck wrote:
> one. RMS wanted to have gcc use machines administered by the FSF; we
> pushed back. gcc.gnu.org is sourceware.org. We did agree that we
A little off-topic, but why *is* gcc on sourceware.org?
/bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile
/home/nightstrike/a/build/gcc/obj/./gcc/xgcc
-B/home/nightstrike/a/build/gcc/obj/./gcc/
-L/home/nightstrike/a/build/gcc/obj/x86_64-w64-mingw32/winsup/mingw
-L/home/nightstrike/a/build/gcc/obj/x86_64-w64-mingw32/winsup/w32api/lib
-isystem /home/nightstrike/a/build
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 01:51:42AM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> > Hi folks.
>> >
>> > At the last minute Ian got a patch in that touched a bunch of places
>> > that I was also changing. I resolved the conflicts, and bo
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> Your committal of r148442 has caused an ICE during the build of libgcc
>> for targetting win64:
>
> I have this pending patch, which may or may not fix this.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01113.html
>
> Can you try and see
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c: In function ?i386_pe_encode_section_info?:
>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c:288: error: too few arguments to
>> function ?make_decl_one_only?
>
> make_decl_one_only expects one argument, and that's what
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:18 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c: In function
>>> ?i386_pe_encode_section_info?:
>>> ../../gcc/gcc/config/i386/winnt.c:288: error: too
Given the recent issues with libffi being so drastically out of synch
with upstream, I was curious about boehm-gc and how that is handled.
In getting gcj to work on Win64, the next step is boehm-gc now that
libffi works just fine. However, the garbage collector is in terrible
shape and will need a
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Daney wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> Given the recent issues with libffi being so drastically out of synch
>> with upstream, I was curious about boehm-gc and how that is handled.
>> In getting gcj to work on Win64, the nex
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Daney
>> wrote:
>>> NightStrike wrote:
>>>> Given the recent issues with libffi being so drastically out of synch
>>>> with upstre
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>> Given the recent issues with libffi being so drastically out of synch
>> with upstream, I was curious about boehm-gc and how that is handled.
>> In getting gcj to work on Win64, the next step
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Hans Boehm wrote:
> What has been a problem is that while the 6.8 -> 7.0 changes cleaned
> up the code substantially, and a lot of contributed patches since then
> have done a lot more of that, that step also introduced a fair amount of
> instability. I think we're
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>
>> All that above said - do you expect us to carry both vec.h (for VEC in
>> GC memory) and std::vector (for VECs in heap memory) (and vec.h
>> for the alloca trick ...)? Or do you think we should try to make th
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Steve
Kargl wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:34:00PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>> I have been trying to run the gfortran testsuite for a while now, and
>> it keeps falling apart. Dominiq tried to find a revision that might
>> attribute to i
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:14 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Steve
> Kargl wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 12:34:00PM -0400, NightStrike wrote:
>>> I have been trying to run the gfortran testsuite for a while now, and
>>> it keeps falling a
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Several people have asked that there be a forum for asking questions of
> and providing feedback to the GCC RMs. Since this is of course a very
> widely distributed community, the best medium for this seems to be an
> IRC chat. To that end
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> Also, I would like to make a new policy that from now on patches to
>> the toplevel cannot be committed by anyone who doesn't have write
>> access to both gcc and src. Is there any agreement on this?
>
> Our current policy certainly doesn't
Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
been waiting since November
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00177.html). I t
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 14:09, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> threads that haven't been addressed. I offered to Ian to do the same
>> thing for the whole mailing list if we can make it a policy that
>> people who commit
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Recently on #gcc, I have been conversing with several others on the
>> topic of patches lost in the tides of the gcc-patches mailing list. I
>> flagged Jeff Downs' recent message as an example of a patch that has
>> been waiting since Novemb
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Joern Rennecke
wrote:
> Quoting NightStrike :
>
>> Annoying or not, I wasn't offering to sift through svn commit logs.
>
> How about requiring that a patch should have an associated open PR with the
> patch keyword to be considered for pi
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Reading gcc-cvs, or ChangeLogs, or other things like that is just way
>> too much time.
>
> What about writing a small script that parses the main ChangeLogs? They are
> supposed to be uniformly formatted. And ping messages shouldn't contai
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/08/2010 02:20 AM, Manuel López-Ibáńez wrote:
>> Perhaps NightStrike can fine-tune his approach.
> By the way, I wonder how many contributors can even think taking
> seriously a message coming from "NightStrik
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Martin Guy wrote:
> On 6/8/10, NightStrike wrote:
>> Are you volunteering to write that small script?
>
> DUnno, are you volunteering to write that small script?
Sorry, no :(
> You're the only one here actually volunteering a forwardgoin
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> What we would need is some way to detect that patches have been
> committed. Otherwise that list will grow uncontrollably very fast.
Imagine that :)
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
> wrote:
>
>> I do believe that it is odd that one of the most important
>> free-software projects in terms of widespread use, a free-software
>> project that has a technical quality com
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
>> go about it.
>
> So who actually said no?
>
> David
>
The Frederic guy
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the proposal I set for how to
>> go about it.
>
> So who actually said no?
>
> David
>
The Frederic guy
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:13 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 10:08 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
>> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or he wouldn't create a sourceware
>> a
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 7:39 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ian had confidence in me. He also liked the
assignment is needed for all this. If so, then it
> depends whether NightStrike would agree to sign papers for the FSF
> with his real name. But...
When I first offered to do it, several people told me that FSF
paperwork is not required for this effort.
I presented what I would need - access
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Richard Kenner
wrote:
>> The free software community works on a web of trust and personal
>> relationships. If you prefer to remain pseudonymous, then you must
>> accept that you will not be at the center of that web.
>
> I agree. Openness is an important part of
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 June 2010 05:40, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>> Then you should consider using legitimate account creation policies.
>> If I just put "John Smith" in the sign up form, I would have gotten an
>> ac
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
wrote:
> On 29 June 2010 13:23, NightStrike wrote:
>>
>>> This whole issue has focussed in a little problem about the final step
>>> (installing bugzilla in sourceware.org), whereas there is so much work
>>
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> It's not just present on "social community" sites. Look at the
>> entirety of sourceforge. That's quite a large respository of free
>> software, and yet it co
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> NightStrike writes:
>
>> [...]
>>> So who actually said no?
>>
>> The Frederic guy didn't like my fake-looking fake name, and wanted a
>> real-looking-but-just-as-fake name, or
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 07:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>> In consultation with other overseers, I rejected your request. I did
>>> not ask for a "real-looking-but-just-as-fake name", but a "real name".
>>
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 3:24 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> He understood your point very well. That is why Frank said, "You
> falsely presume zero vetting."
Maybe I didn't get the zero vetting part, then. I thought I did, but
apparently not. What does that mean in this context? Google isn't
tel
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I'm very sceptical about "or any later version" instructions when
>> building the gcc prerequisites. In practice this can never be certain
>> to work, because the upstream maintainers of these tools can change
>> them in ways that break gc
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> Andrew J. Hutton wrote:
>
>> The annual GCC & GNU Toolchain Developers’ Summit brings together the core
>> development team of the GNU Compiler Collection with those working on the
>> other toolchain components to discuss the state of the art. W
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
> NightStrike wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:22 PM, I wrote:
>
>>> Perhaps some from the gfortran effort would like to give a talk. As far
>>> as
>>> I can see I can support one person f
We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6.
What has to be checked off for that to happen? I have an
auto-testsuite-thinger running constantly now and posting results to
the ML (it takes several days to do a full dl/build/test, so it's not
daily, but it's continuous).
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 9/4/2010 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>> We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6.
>
> Who is "we" in this context?
Sorry, that would be Kai Tietz, myself, and the entire mingw-
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>
>>> It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the
>>> SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical s
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference?
>> >
>> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have:
>> >
>> > • The comp
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>>&g
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Rich
1 - 100 of 242 matches
Mail list logo
