https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #15 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 28 May 2014, manu at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Is any company spending money on GCC Fortran development? That would be
> awesome
> if it were true!
It's true for OpenACC support.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #13)
> In my paranoid days I have the feeling that I don't exist on the gcc
> lists!-(although I am only interested by gfortran and optimization, I do
> w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> BTW, having a user-base without developers coming out of that user-base is
> useless. If no one from apple-darwin is interested in developing GCC, then
> it doesn't matter how big the user base is:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #12 from Manuel López-Ibáñez ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #6)
> I would also add that you are playing with fire here. Currently no company
> has a motivation to expend money or resources for fortran development on
> llvm
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||manu at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrs at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #9 from Jack Howarth ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > Is the object here to burn all bridges with the darwin target and leave
> > those users only the option of using llvm based compilers as of gcc 4.10?
>
> Well
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jack Howarth from comment #5)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> > Still does not matter, the compiler is broken and should be reported to
> > Apple. The time for work around in bro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
A patch has been posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-05/msg02173.html.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth ---
I would also add that you are playing with fire here. Currently no company has
a motivation to expend money or resources for fortran development on llvm as
long as FSF gcc is buildable. If you start removing c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Jack Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
--- Comment #4 from Francois-Xavier Coudert ---
This sounds a lot like believing you can build the better product by assigning
"blame" to others, not by building something that works for users. I'm sorry if
that's become the GCC philosophy.
I'n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Francois-Xavier Coudert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61315
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
15 matches
Mail list logo
