Joe Buck wrote:
> However, if we have text that is entirely generated from a GPL program
> by some kind of generator program, that text can be distributed under
> the GPL.
As a license statement, that's accurate. As a policy statement, the FSF
seems to object if the output is a "manual", but n
>
> A release canidate for GCC 4.5.1 is available from
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.1-RC-20100722/
>
> and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 162408.
>
> I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
> x86_64
Quoting Joe Buck :
RMS is unlikely to abandon the GFDL because the features that many object
to as non-free are intentionally chosen, in part to make sure that he can
get his message out even in situations where a distributor would not agree
with that message. I think he hasn't gotten over ESR'
Quoting "Joseph S. Myers" :
That diff does not appear to relate to undefined behavior. GCC considers
these out-of-range conversions to yield an unspecified value, possibly
raising an exception, as per Annex F, and does not take the liberty of
optimizing on the basis of them being undefined when
Hi,
You mean I should define insn like this:
(define_insn "*iorqi3_imm"
[(set (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 0 "register_operand" "b"))
(ior:QI (mem:QI (match_operand:HI 1 "register_operand" "b")
(mem:QI (plus: HI (match_operand:HI 2
"register_operand" "f")
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 04:36:46PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Steven Bosscher wrote:
>
> >> 2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
> >> manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
> >>
> >> This got complicated; see previous postin
Steven Bosscher wrote:
>> 2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
>> manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
>>
>> This got complicated; see previous postings. But, it's not relevant to
>> your question, since you're not trying to
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 2. Can we move GPL'd code into GFDL'd manuals, or copy text from GFDL's
> manuals into GPL'd code, or auto-generated GFDL's manuals from GPL'd code?
>
> This got complicated; see previous postings. But, it's not relevant to
> your question,
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> Is there a separate issue for libstdc++ doxygen? This situation is
> subtly different from the one outlined above: it is the application of
> a GPL'd tool over GPL'd sources, which the FSF + Red Hat legal have
> both told me for years results in GPL'd docs (and is clearly
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting "Naveen H. S" :
>
> > extendsfdf2 - gcc.c-torture/execute/conversion.c
> > gcc.dg/torture/fp-int-convert-float.c, gcc.dg/pr28796-2.c
>
> Note that some tests invoke undefined behaviour; I've also come across this
> when doing optimized soft FP
Snapshot gcc-4.5-20100722 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5-20100722/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Robert Dewar wrote:
> For another take, though the Ada standard extensively uses the word
> integral, it does prefer integer type, by analogy with array type,
> record type etc, where no adjective is available.
>
> But as noted the C++ standard prefers integral type, so might
I refer you to the various issues I have raised with attributes proposals
in WG14 in the past, some at least of which have also been forwarded to
WG21. The committees have generally chosen not to listen to compatibility
concerns, except insofar as WG14 ended up not adopting general attribute
s
Quoting Christian Bruel :
oops, resending it with a small typo fix (a branch became delayed :-().
For an actual patch, you need to use the SL* macros from
config/sh/lib1funcs.h because the SH1 does not have delayed branches.
Quoting Christian Bruel :
Using the ieee-sf.S + this patch
OK
Is this only a proof-of-concept, because you only change the ne[sd]f2
implementation? And you go out of your way to only accept a restricted
set of values. Plus, the overuse of the arithmetic unit hurts SH4-100 /
SH4-200 instru
Quoting Christian Bruel :
> About the other part of your answer, non supporting SNaNs in the
fp-bit.c, it is a possibility that I didn't consider in my fix. This
restriction is quite a surprise to me because, related to NaNs, it is
not what I guess from the implementation of the fp-bit.c's isna
oops, resending it with a small typo fix (a branch became delayed :-().
Just in case it we accepted that SNaNs and QNaNs are not exclusive and
mimic the C model, a synthetic illustrative test case:
Compile with
sh-superh-elf-gcc -O2 -mieee -m4-nofpu snan.c snan2.c -g -o l.u ;
sh-superh-elf-ru
Joern Rennecke wrote:
> That's a bug, then; we shouldn't use a library function there,
> but the cmpordered[sd]f_t_4 patterns.
Argh, I've missed the required patterns are incorporated already
in your patch. I'll test it again with sh-softfp-predicate-fix
when the tests for 4.5.1-rc are done. Th
Joern Rennecke wrote:
Quoting Christian Bruel :
Edited to apply on top of latest Joern's patch. Certainly not optimal
but it fixes the QNaNs checks for builtins and inlined unordered
comparisons for -mieee or -fno-inite-math-only.
You are still on the wrong track; as I said in my earlier mess
A release canidate for GCC 4.5.1 is available from
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.5.1-RC-20100722/
and shortly its mirrors. It has been generated from SVN revision 162408.
I have sofar bootstrapped and tested the release candidate on
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Please test it and report
The 4.5 branch is frozen for preparation of a 4.5.1 release candidate
and the 4.5.1 release. Please refrain from checking in non-documentation
changes without release manager approval.
Thanks,
Richard.
Status
==
The GCC 4.5 branch is now frozen for preparation of a GCC 4.5.1
release candidate. Please refrain from checking in non-documentation
changes without release manager approval. If everything goes
right GCC 4.5.1 will be released around Jul 1st.
Quality Data
Priority
Quoting Christian Bruel :
Edited to apply on top of latest Joern's patch. Certainly not optimal
but it fixes the QNaNs checks for builtins and inlined unordered
comparisons for -mieee or -fno-inite-math-only.
You are still on the wrong track; as I said in my earlier message, we
should not emit
On 7/22/10 3:34 AM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote:
Cselib can /always/ be used during second scheduling pass
Except with the selective scheduler when it works on regions that are
not extended basic blocks, I suppose?
Right, I was considering s
Christian Bruel wrote:
Hi Kaz,
Kaz Kojima wrote:
BTW, it looks that softfp __unord?f2 routines check signaling NaNs
only. This makes __builtin_isnan return false for quiet NaNs for
which current fp-bit ones return true when -mieee enabled. Perhaps
that change of behavior might be OK for sof
25 matches
Mail list logo
