Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
Please file a missed-optimization report according to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/ . Thanks.
I rather not,
Hi Richard,
2010/4/23, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
2010/4/14, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:48 AM, roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
BTW, I can see in gcc src:
(define_insn
[(set (match_operand:CC 0 cc_reg_operand =x,?y)
On 04/25/2010 06:05 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Michael Witten mfwit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:33, Richard Kenner
If I submit a patch to the GCC project---necessitating an assignment
of the copyright to the FSF---then can the people of the
Hi,
I recently completed my degree project on LTH on retargeting GCC. See
http://sam.cs.lth.se/ExjobGetFile?id=224 for my report (it will be moved to
http://cs.lth.se/examensarbete/rapporter/rapporter_2010/ soon).
Even though I was aiming for a DSP architecture, I wrote down some things
On 04/25/2010 11:27 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 01:12, Mark Mielke wrote:
The real reason for FSF copyright assignment is control. The FSF wants to
control GCC.
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to
On 04/25/2010 11:44 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
On 26/04/2010 04:30, Richard Kenner wrote:
Yes. Specifically, they want to be able to enforce the GPL. Since only the
copyright holder can license code to anyone, whether under GPL or whatever
terms, FSF has to hold the copyright, or it can't sue
On 04/26/2010 12:31 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mielkem...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
I thought clean room
Alfred M. Szmidt writes:
You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing nothing
to reduce anyone's ability to sue me,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Dave Korn
dave.korn.cyg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 25/04/2010 23:16, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Dave Korn wrote:
Is there a PR open about this, or any notes anywhere? Being as I use a
non-ELF platform and so gold is not an
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:43 AM, roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
2010/4/23, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
2010/4/14, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed,
On 04/26/2010 07:20 AM, Richard Kenner wrote:
[1] France in my case, probably Europe in general. What you do in
your free time is yours by default, land grab clauses are not
accepted, and it's only when you work at home on things you also
do at work that questions can be asked.
That's true in
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
It wouldn't be worth my time and I have trouble
On 26 April 2010 07:06, Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com wrote:
I find it amusing the willingness of various developers to debate the
veracity of the LLVM policies, but the simulataneous (apparent) unwillingness
to address GCC's (perceived) problems. Why not spend your time helping
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
Please file a
Hello again and thank you a lot for the quick replies! I am impressed by
the number of mails I got in such a short time. You helped us loads.
I will also try to document our work every step of the way, maybe it will
help someone else in the future.
Regards,
Radu
Version 4.5 was successfully built on RedHat 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 x86_64
with glibc-2.5-42.el5_4.3
srcdir/config.guess: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.0/configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr
--prefix=/usr --with-mpc=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE) the
software and nothing else. Note that I changed right to permission.
The owner of the software
Version 4.5 was successfully built on RedHat 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 x86_64
with glibc-2.5-42.el5_4.3
srcdir/config.guess: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.5.0/configure --with-gmp=/usr --with-mpfr=/usr
--prefix=/usr --with-mpc=/usr --mandir=/usr/share/man
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc
Hi,
I wanted to ask - perhaps you know - what is the status of adding the
UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC, for c++?
It is according to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cpplib.html that such
support is planned.
If you know that there is some patch somewhere floating around, even
a very
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I said no.
It's public
You are free to keep discussing this ad-infinitum. But I really think
that this discussion is not adding anything new. It seems the same old
controversy that is beyond GCC. And it is getting confusing, hard to
follow, and at the end, all your effort will be lost in the archives
and help no one.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to ask - perhaps you know - what is the status of adding the
UTF-8 support for identifier names in GCC, for c++?
It is according to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cpplib.html that such
support is planned.
That page generally appears
On 26 April 2010 14:21, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
simple but not simpler than they become more complex for us.
Lots of stuff
In Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
Hi David,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote:
There are a large number of users and a small number of developers.
Why is it so large a burden to ask users to provide the information in
a standard format in a centralized, trackable location, like GCC
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:35:49 + (UTC))
If you wish to experiment with extended identifiers, use
-fextended-identifiers. This only supports UCNs in identifiers, not
extended characters represented other than with UCNs. Point 14 out of 15
on my
David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 14:54:55:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 13:59:04:
On 26 April 2010 09:13, Joakim Tjernlund
On 26 April 2010 14:42, Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
What is to be done besides what you have done here but in a more
useful, structured manner? I am asking because we want to make things
simple
On 26 April 2010 15:22, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
feature enhancement. Some of the information can be left blank, but
if we do not have information about the system and an example, we may
not understand the request or may not be able to reproduce the problem
and
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 15:29:54:
On 26 April 2010 15:22, Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se
wrote:
feature enhancement. Some of the information can be left blank, but
if we do not have information about the system and an example, we may
Hi Richard,
Here is the relevant block from the dump:
bb 3:
__vect_var__26_6 = *__vect_p_14_19;
*__vect_p_18_25 = __vect_var__26_6;
# PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_2 } (restr)
__vect_p_22_11 = __vect_p_14_19 + 8;
# PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_1 } (restr)
__vect_p_27_12 =
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
David Edelsohn dje@gmail.com wrote on 2010/04/26 14:54:55:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 8:21 AM, Joakim Tjernlund
joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se wrote:
Manuel López-Ibáñez lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote on
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Anyway, I *looked* at the page and it said something about gccbug so I tried
that, not obvious either but I let me fire off a report an back came
bug ID 43892
Thanks for filing the report.
Ian
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote on 2010/04/25 20:07:03:
Joakim Tjernlund joakim.tjernl...@transmode.se writes:
Noticed that gcc 4.3.4 doesn't optimize add with carry properly:
BTW, I can see in gcc src:
(define_insn
[(set
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Janek Kozicki wrote:
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:35:49 +
(UTC))
If you wish to experiment with extended identifiers, use
-fextended-identifiers. This only supports UCNs in identifiers, not
extended characters represented
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM, roy rosen roy.1ro...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Richard,
Here is the relevant block from the dump:
bb 3:
__vect_var__26_6 = *__vect_p_14_19;
*__vect_p_18_25 = __vect_var__26_6;
# PT = nonlocal { __PARM_RESTRICT_2 } (restr)
__vect_p_22_11 = __vect_p_14_19 + 8;
Hi Manuel,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez
lopeziba...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess that's the point, really. 15 minutes for what exactly? All the
information is right there in the email Joakim sent. You are trying to
make life easier for developers, not users or testers.
I
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some
public domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part
of a FSF project. Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU
project with a GPL license, configure scripts, a cute acronym and
all that stuff. I said
You are still open to liabilities for your own project, if you
incorporate code that you do not have copyright over, the original
copyright holder can still sue you
That's irrlevent. By signing the FSF's document I'd be doing
nothing to reduce anyone's ability to sue me, I could
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE)
the software and nothing else.
In case of GCC, you have the explicit permission to
Wouldn't contributing a patch to be read by the person who will be
solving the problem, but without transferring of rights, introduce
risk or liability for the FSF and GCC?
That risk always exists; some level of trust has to exist somewhere.
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned (AFAIK) is to change the license.
This is not the only
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:06 + (UTC))
I suppose that raw/real UTF-8 will not work ;)
So how do I express UCN in the code?
By using the \u or \U syntax. For example, pipe your code
through
perl -pe 'BEGIN { binmode STDIN, :utf8; }
On 26 April 2010 16:33, Pekka Enberg penb...@cs.helsinki.fi wrote:
I guess the conventional wisdom says that the way to attract new
developers is to first attract users and testers and then turn them
into contributors.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have probably hundreds of
I added all this to the wiki for future reference:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#utf8_identifiers
Feel free to improve it.
Cheers,
Manuel.
On 26 April 2010 17:12, Janek Kozicki janek_li...@wp.pl wrote:
Joseph S. Myers said: (by the date of Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:15:06 +
(UTC))
I
Ross Ridge writes:
Years ago, I was asked to sign one of these documents for some public
domain code I wrote that I never intended to become part of a FSF project.
Someone wanted to turn it a regular GNU project with a GPL license,
configure scripts, a cute acronym and all that stuff. I said
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:00:13 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be legally
safe?
I do not
Given that there are plenty of high-profile projects out there
which seem to be entirely safe in the absence of copyright
assignment policies, why, exactly, does GCC need one to be
legally safe?
I do not know what high-profile projects you are refering to
On Apr 26, 2010, at 8:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It's unclear whether the LLVM-style implicit copyright assignment
is really enforceable, and this certainly isn't a forum to debate
it. In any case, it doesn't really matter, because the only reason
copyright needs to be assigned
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:50:14 -0400
Alfred M. Szmidt a...@gnu.org wrote:
If with kernel you mean Linux, then they require you to agree to an
type of assignment (though not in paper form), same for git.
No.
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
Actually it's not. The FSF sets the rules, and you either play along
or you don't do the work
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net wrote:
I would not presume to tell the GCC project what its policy should be;
that's a decision for the people who are doing the work.
Actually it's
Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
What are clean room implementations for if not for avoiding copyright
violation?
Avoiding contract violations such as promises to keep source code
secret. A strict clean room implementation also makes it clear that
no copyright violation could have
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:53:51AM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to the FSF.
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:03:25PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
There is so much negativism about a mere nuisance in this thread. It's
a shame, but I guess it's just more proof that negative discussions
about GCC are more popular than positive ones.
Seriously, depending on the country it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
i686-w64-mingw32.
i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2 -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -DIN_GCC
- -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-
Chris Lattner wrote:
To be perfectly clear, I'm not suggesting that the FSF or GCC
project change their policies.
Sure. But others have and that's what this thread is all about.
Jonathan Corbet wrote:
If the copyright holders don't wish to sue, then, one presumes, they
are not unhappy
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:59:46PM +0200, Rainer Emrich wrote:
I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
i686-w64-mingw32.
i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2 -D__USE_MINGW_ACCESS -DIN_GCC
- -DCROSS_DIRECTORY_STRUCTURE -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 26.04.2010 20:03, schrieb Jakub Jelinek:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:59:46PM +0200, Rainer Emrich wrote:
I get an ICE in dbxout.c building a cross compiler from i686-pc-mingw32 to
i686-w64-mingw32.
i686-pc-mingw32-gcc -c -g -O2
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign the copyright to the FSF. In practice this
Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net writes:
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have thousands of lines
of code in the kernel, and the copyright
On 26 April 2010 21:28, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
Jonathan Corbet cor...@lwn.net writes:
What you agree to is the developers certificate of origin (DCO), which
says you have the right to contribute the code to the kernel. No
copyright assignment takes place. Trust me, I have
And how are potential contributors supposed to know this?
They're really not. The fundamental problem here is that this area of
the law is not only very complicated, but is really all guesswork
since there are few, if any, relevant cases. Moreover, this is an
area of the law where details
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them
Chris Lattner clatt...@apple.com writes:
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Again, just for the record. History shows that this is not entirely
useless. People at NeXT wrote the Objective C frontend to GCC. They
did not intend to release the source code. The FSF
On Apr 26, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Beyond that, the changes to support Objective C 2.0 (and later) have
never been merged back in, despite being published and widely
available under the GPL. Also, the GNU runtime and the NeXT
runtimes are wildly incompatible, and the ObjC
On 04/26/2010 10:53 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattnerclatt...@apple.com writes:
This is a often repeated example, but you're leaving out the big
part of the story (at least as far as I know). The license *did
not* force the ObjC frontend to be merged back into GCC, there were
other
Hi Manuel
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote, On 25/04/10 22:37:
[.]
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ChangeLog
Basically, in your case, do not repeat the filename and mention which
function is affected (if any).
2010-03-13 Jon Grant 0...@jguk.org
* collect2.h: vflag extern changed to bool so
On 26/04/2010 23:18, Jon wrote:
Hi Manuel
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote, On 25/04/10 22:37:
[.]
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ChangeLog
Basically, in your case, do not repeat the filename and mention which
function is affected (if any).
2010-03-13 Jon Grant 0...@jguk.org
* collect2.h:
I have a port without div or mod machine instructions. I wrote
divmodsi4 patterns that do the libcall directly, hoping that GCC would
recognize the opportunity to use a single divmodsi4 to compute both
quotient and remainder. Alas, GCC calls divmodsi4 twice with the same
divisor and dividend
Paolo Bonzini bonz...@gnu.org writes:
And even in the US we lost a patch for 4.5 due to a problem with the
disclaimer. I read this recently on gcc-patches:
The FSF has a personal copyright assignment for me, but I could not
get one from my employer at the time, Stanford (according to
On 04/26/2010 03:23 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Chris Lattnerclatt...@apple.com writes
w.r.t. hoarding, I'll point out that (in the context of GCC) being
able to enforce copyright is pretty useless IMO. While you can
force someone to release their code, the GPL doesn't force them to
assign
I can say from my 15 years of experience working here that in general
Stanford *hates* signing legal documents. This is true even of
procurement contracts. Stanford negotiates legalities very aggressively,
negotiates vendor contracts very aggressively, and does not generally sign
things
Nobody can take your code and make it non-free.
They can take a copy of your code and modify it, but at no time does
your original code become non-free. As long as people continue to copy
from your free version of the code, they can continue to use it for
free.
Correct. A perhaps
I think anybody who truly believes in the *merit* of free software,
should be approaching companies who do not understand the merit with a
business plan, not a class action law suit.
Most certainly. And a number of companies have relicensed their software
under the GPL when presented with a
On 04/26/2010 11:11 AM, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
If I have the rights to re-license software, and I re-license the
software, why do I not have permission to enforce these rights?
Because you have the permission to re-DISTRIBUTE (not re-LICENSE)
the software and nothing else.
However, that isn't only/quite what I meant. My understanding of
copyright law is that it *only* protects distribution rights of the
works. For example, as long as I use the software internally within a
single legal entity (company, house hold, or whatever is acceptable to
the courts), I
On 04/26/2010 07:41 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/26/2010 11:23 AM, Mark Mielke wrote:
Personally, this whole issue is problematic to me. I really can't see
why I would ever sue somebody for using software that I had declared
free.
Because (a derivative of) it is being made nonfree?
How
From: Jonas Paulsson d0...@student.lth.se
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:07:04 +0200
I recently completed my degree project on LTH on retargeting GCC. See
http://sam.cs.lth.se/ExjobGetFile?id=224 for my report (it will be moved to
http://cs.lth.se/examensarbete/rapporter/rapporter_2010/ soon).
Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc writes:
This presumes that NeXT would not have discovered the value of free
software and done the right thing eventually anyways. I think anybody
who truly believes in free software should believe in it for practical
reasons. It's not just a religion - it's the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 02:00:30PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
Olivier Galibert wrote:
You can't force some entity to release source code they have
copyright to, that's not part of the legal remedies that are
available to a judge.
What makes you say that?
The law, *duh*
Why couldn't
Greg McGary g...@mcgary.org writes:
I have a port without div or mod machine instructions. I wrote
divmodsi4 patterns that do the libcall directly, hoping that GCC would
recognize the opportunity to use a single divmodsi4 to compute both
quotient and remainder. Alas, GCC calls divmodsi4
--- Comment #13 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 06:11 ---
Kai, what about the GetTempPath? Cf. the rough draft in attachment 20460 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43844
--- Comment #4 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 07:55 ---
Well, or just use some default name of the unit ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41584
--- Comment #7 from dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net 2010-04-26
08:19 ---
This is fixed in 4.5.0 release.
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=revisionrevision=148199
Danny
--
dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #35 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-26 08:23 ---
The testsuite completed cleanly, without any failures. Paul, if you agree that
this patch is ok, I can commit it tomorrow.
Confirmed without any problem on my own test.
--
--- Comment #5 from carrot at google dot com 2010-04-26 08:30 ---
Yes, it looks much better for this case. The number of instructions is reduced
from 49 to 39. All problems described have gone.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43216
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 08:47 ---
Fixed now.
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #36 from janus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:08 ---
Subject: Bug 42274
Author: janus
Date: Mon Apr 26 09:07:26 2010
New Revision: 158721
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158721
Log:
2010-04-26 Janus Weil ja...@gcc.gnu.org
PR
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:13 ---
Subject: Bug 42425
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 26 09:13:00 2010
New Revision: 158722
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158722
Log:
2010-04-26 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2010-04-26 09:16 ---
This PR is likely due to revision 158639:
Author: bernds
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:42:21 2010 UTC (3 days, 22 hours ago)
Changed paths: 4
Log Message:
* ifcvt.c (dead_or_predicable): Use
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:17 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:19 ---
Subject: Bug 43080
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Apr 26 09:19:24 2010
New Revision: 158723
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=158723
Log:
2010-04-26 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:25 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-26 09:30 ---
possibly caused by the changes for Bug 25811
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from fabien dot chene at gmail dot com 2010-04-26 09:58
---
(In reply to comment #1)
possibly caused by the changes for Bug 25811
Confirmed, please assigned me on this regression.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43890
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
