On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 06:36:48 +0300
Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 2010/9/2 Basile Starynkevitch :
> > Hello Laurynas, Diego & all the list.
> >
> > A precise question about gengtype (the current trunk one)
> >
> > I have the impression that every member of the 'param_structs' variable
> > in gengtype.
2010/9/2 Basile Starynkevitch :
> Hello Laurynas, Diego & all the list.
>
> A precise question about gengtype (the current trunk one)
>
> I have the impression that every member of the 'param_structs' variable
> in gengtype.c (viewed as a linked list of types linked thru their next
> field) is also
Hi, all,
I'm using gentoo distribution (including gmp/mpfr/mpc) that could compile
gcc-4.5.0, 4.5.1, and many snapshots correctly, including the recent one
gcc-4.5-20100902,
but when I tried to compile gcc-4.6, any snapshot version, even recent
gcc-4.6-20100904,
it always failed, the recent one
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 compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library
builds.
• The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substant
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, NightStrike wrote:
> Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards
> stacked in our favor :)
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 compiler bootstraps suc
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20100905 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20100905/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 9/5/2010 11:34 AM, NightStrike wrote:
>> I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm
>> happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions.
>
> Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards
> stacked in our favor :)
OK, I've asked t
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 stats
>>> of the port. I can raise the issue with the
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 stats
>> of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but,
>> personally, I'm not sure that 64-b
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-w64.sf.net project.
>> What has
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?
> What has to be checked off for that to happen?
It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the
SC's perception of the importan
Between September 2nd
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00197.html
and September 3rd
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00282.html
DFP support broke quite a bit on FreeBSD.
Failures happen at link time. The following is a typical example for
FAIL: g++.dg/compat/de
Hello,
Doloop optimization fails to be applied on the following inner loop
when compiling for PowerPC (GCC -r162294) due to:
Doloop: number of iterations too costly to compute.
I do not understand why as the number of iterations is max_cols and I
appreciate an explanation.
Thanks,
Revital
1
13 matches
Mail list logo
