On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:10:26 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> > What is the right answer? Designated initializers are part of C99,
> > but weren't added to C++ until C++20
> > (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/initialization).
> > Strictly speaking, we should remove all of them, because o
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:37:32 -0400
Paul Koning wrote:
> > 4. cast pointers formatted with %p as (void*)
>
> Could that be (const void *) instead?
Yes. Nothing is committed yet; I'll make that change first.
Could you explain why it matters, please, for my edification?
--jkl
> On Mar 13, 2025, at 11:27 AM, James K. Lowden
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 19:10:26 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
>>> What is the right answer? Designated initializers are part of C99,
>>> but weren't added to C++ until C++20
>>> (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/initiali
Hi David,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:40:18PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> FWIW gcc/cobol/lang.opt.urls has some D-specific things that look like
> copy-and-paste cruft, but hopefully it won't cause problems.
And some Fortran stuff. The autoregen bot currently flags it with the
following diff:
d
On Wed, 2025-03-12 at 12:09 +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:40:18PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > FWIW gcc/cobol/lang.opt.urls has some D-specific things that look
> > like
> > copy-and-paste cruft, but hopefully it won't cause problems.
>
> And some Fortr
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 12:09:44PM +0100, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:40:18PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > FWIW gcc/cobol/lang.opt.urls has some D-specific things that look like
> > copy-and-paste cruft, but hopefully it won't cause problems.
>
> And some Fo
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 05:34:40PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Building gcobol with GCC 7 shows
>
> gcc/cobol/except.cc:285:70: sorry, unimplemented: non-trivial
> designated initializers not supported
>
> that needs to be sorted out (post-merge is OK).
cbl_field_data_t data = { .memsize = ca
anch on gcc.gnu.org git and tomorrow from there to trunk.
Richard.
>
> Bob Dubner
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Richard Biener
> > Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 07:27
> > To: James K. Lowden
> > Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> &
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:34:40 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> index 10a42cb1dd7..8e18ef1 100644
> --- a/gcc/Makefile.in
> +++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
> ...
> +# user-defined functions for GCOBOL
> +udfdir = $(datadir)/gcobol/udf
> ..
> @@ -4031,7 +4035,9 @@ installdirs:
> $(mkinstalldirs) $(DE
On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 11:50 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:43:16 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > > In short, despite not trying to support DESTDIR, we do anyway, by
> > > happy accident. And we are now better informed.
> >
> > Thanks. Checking cobol-patched again I see
* gmath.h: New file.
* io.h: New file.
* libgcobol.h: New file.
* valconv.h: New file.
* libgcobol.cc: New file.
* intrinsic.cc: New file.
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> > Bob Dubner
> >
> > > -Original Message---
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 7:07 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:34:40 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > index 10a42cb1dd7..8e18ef1 100644
> > --- a/gcc/Makefile.in
> > +++ b/gcc/Makefile.in
> > ...
> > +# user-defined functions for GCOBOL
> > +udfdir = $(datadir)/gcobol/ud
On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 19:07 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 5:34 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:12 AM Robert Dubner
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard and Jakub, and everybody else who has offered advice and
> > > help
> > >
> > > I trust you re
On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:40 PM David Malcolm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2025-03-10 at 19:07 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 5:34 PM Richard Biener
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 12:12 AM Robert Dubner
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard and Jakub, and everybody
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 18:05:21 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Designated initializers are C++20, so you should just avoid that. So,
> I'd recommend just:
> cbl_field_data_t data = { /* memsize= */capacity_cast(len),
> /* capacity= */capacity_cast(len),
>
Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 07:27
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:34 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
&
On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 11:34 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 11:50 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:43:16 +0100
> > Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> > > > In short, despite not trying to support DESTDIR, we do anyway, by
> > > > happy accident. And we are
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 11:43:16 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> > In short, despite not trying to support DESTDIR, we do anyway, by
> > happy accident. And we are now better informed.
>
> Thanks. Checking cobol-patched again I see
Hi Richard,
I have regenerated and force-pushed cobol-patched. It
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:58
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 0
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:58
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Richard Biener ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 0
> -Original Message-
> From: Richard Biener
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:50
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: Jakub Jelinek ; James K. Lowden
> ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Ma
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 09:47:45AM -0600, Robert Dubner wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 08:35
> > To: Richard Biener
> > Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: The COBOL
> -Original Message-
> From: Jakub Jelinek
> Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 08:35
> To: Richard Biener
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: The COBOL front end, version 3, now in 14 easy pieces
>
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:46:48PM +01
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 4:47 PM Robert Dubner wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jakub Jelinek
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 08:35
> > To: Richard Biener
> > Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: The COBOL fron
On Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 12:46:48PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> and the installed compiler behaves as intended. I can trick -m32 to "work"
> by using the generic gcc diriver:
>
> > ./install/gcc-cobol/usr/local/bin/gcc -x cobol t.cob -m32 -c
>
> but I think this is a less important issue.
Agr
On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 7:18 PM James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:08:16 +0100
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:21:38PM -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> > > However IMO, the incantation:
> > >
> > > make install DESTDIR=/foo
> > >
> > > is invalid. The comp
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 12:46 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 11:43 AM Richard Biener
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 7:18 PM James K. Lowden
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:08:16 +0100
> > > Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:
On Wed, Mar 5, 2025 at 11:43 AM Richard Biener
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2025 at 7:18 PM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:08:16 +0100
> > Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:21:38PM -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> > > > However IMO, the incantation:
>
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 00:08:16 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:21:38PM -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> > However IMO, the incantation:
> >
> > make install DESTDIR=/foo
> >
> > is invalid. The compiler's library search path is fixed when the
> > compiler is built, base
On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 05:21:38PM -0500, James K. Lowden wrote:
> However IMO, the incantation:
>
> make install DESTDIR=/foo
>
> is invalid. The compiler's library search path is fixed when the
> compiler is built, based on configure options. Installing into an
> arbitrary directory canno
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> > Our repository is
> >
> > https://gitlab.cobolworx.com/COBOLworx/gcc-cobol/
> >
> > using branch
> >
> > cobol-stage
> >
> > I tested these patches using "git apply" to an unpublished branch
> > "cobol-patched".
>
> I h
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> Compiling a Cobol Hello World results in
>
> > ./install/gcc-cobol/usr/local/bin/gcobol t.cob
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgcobol: No such file or directory
> collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> possibly because the 64bit lib
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 2:48 AM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:38?AM James K. Lowden
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The following 14 patches constitute 105,720 lines of code in 83
> > > files to build and document th
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:38?AM James K. Lowden
> wrote:
> >
> > The following 14 patches constitute 105,720 lines of code in 83
> > files to build and document the COBOL front end.
[...]
> > I tested these patches using "git apply" t
"James K. Lowden" writes:
>> Having a minimal harness in GCCs testsuite is critical - I'd expect a
>> gcc/testsuite/gcobol.dg/dg.exp supporting execution tests. I assume
>> Cobol has a way to exit OK or fatally and this should be
>> distinguished as testsuite PASS or FAIL.
>
> Yes, a COBOL pro
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> Installing the result via make install DESTDIR=/foo I see both a
> 'gcobol' and a 'gcobc' program
> being installed - is that intentional?
Yes, that is intentional. gcobol is the compiler driver, as you know.
gcobc is a shell script t
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 14:51:27 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> gcc-cobol/gcc/cobol/parse.y:1361.10-16: error: require bison 3.5.1,
> but have 3.0.4
> %require "3.5.1" //3.8.2 also works, but not 3.8.0
> ^^^
>
> this requirement isn't documented, neither is a version requirement
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:38 AM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> The following 14 patches constitute 105,720 lines of code in 83 files
> to build and document the COBOL front end. The messages are
> in a more or less logical order. We have:
>
> 1/14 4K dir: create gcc/cobol and libgcobol directorie
Paul Koning wrote:
> >> As I mentioned in other posts, IMO (IANAL) the copyright in
> >> unimportant and probably unenforceable. The National Computing
> >> Centre no longer exists, and the document was also published by NIST
> >> which, as part of the US government, does not copyright its
> >> p
> On Feb 21, 2025, at 2:23 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Paul Koning:
>
>>> On Feb 21, 2025, at 1:59 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>
>>> * James K. Lowden:
>>>
As I mentioned in other posts, IMO (IANAL) the copyright in
unimportant and probably unenforceable. The National Computi
* James K. Lowden:
> As I mentioned in other posts, IMO (IANAL) the copyright in
> unimportant and probably unenforceable. The National Computing
> Centre no longer exists, and the document was also published by NIST
> which, as part of the US government, does not copyright its
> publications.
I
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:00:13 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> > Branches in git don't have independent permissions. If we use
> > gcc.gnu.org git, are we granted commit rights with the priviso that
> > we color inside the lines, and commit only to our own branches?
>
> My expectation is that by co
* Paul Koning:
>> On Feb 21, 2025, at 1:59 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * James K. Lowden:
>>
>>> As I mentioned in other posts, IMO (IANAL) the copyright in
>>> unimportant and probably unenforceable. The National Computing
>>> Centre no longer exists, and the document was also published b
> On Feb 21, 2025, at 1:59 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * James K. Lowden:
>
>> As I mentioned in other posts, IMO (IANAL) the copyright in
>> unimportant and probably unenforceable. The National Computing
>> Centre no longer exists, and the document was also published by NIST
>> which, as
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 01:17:15 + (UTC)
Joseph Myers wrote:
> > The Makefile fetches the NIST archive from our website.
>
> The normal build and test process ("make" and "make check") must
> never rely on any network connectivity.
Fair enough. I haven't added the NIST tests and documenta
On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 8:38 PM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:38:58 +0100
> Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > Can you clarify on the future development model for Cobol after it has
> > been merged? Is the cobolworx gitlab still going to be the primary
> > development location and c
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The Makefile fetches the NIST archive from our website. (We originally
> got it from NIST, but their site was reorganized last year. The file
> went missing, as apparently did my email to the webmaster.
> Technology!) The file might have 100 targets
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:38:58 +0100
Richard Biener wrote:
> Can you clarify on the future development model for Cobol after it has
> been merged? Is the cobolworx gitlab still going to be the primary
> development location and changes should be made there and then merged
> to the GCC side?
I w
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 12:38 AM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> The following 14 patches constitute 105,720 lines of code in 83 files
> to build and document the COBOL front end. The messages are
> in a more or less logical order. We have:
>
> 1/14 4K dir: create gcc/cobol and libgcobol directorie
49 matches
Mail list logo
