On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Solal wrote:
>
> I've got ideas for improve the preprocessor with specific features.
>
> The basic idea is to make the preprocessing language a complete
> programming language.
We are very unlikely to add such features to GCC unless they first
become part of the C
On Apr 22, 2014, at 12:48 PM, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
>
>>> While of course one hopes that there will be no issues with wide-int, a
>>> change of this size will have some pain no matter how well we have
>>> tested it. Having three reviewers will assure problems are resolved
>>> quickly.
>> Works f
On 04/22/2014 03:37 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
Richi,
David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
reviewers
for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
reviewers for wide-int in the long te
On April 22, 2014 9:28:15 PM CEST, Kenneth Zadeck
wrote:
>Richi,
>
>David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing
>reviewers
>for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
>
>reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be
>useful
>to
Richi,
David Edelsohn said that I should talk to you about appointing reviewers
for wide-int.While I think that it may not be necessary to have any
reviewers for wide-int in the long term, I think that it would be useful
to make Richard Sandiford, Mike Stump and myself reviewers at least f
Hi,
Thank-you for selecting me for GSoC 2014, I am looking forward to
working with GCC community. I am grateful to Richard Biener and Diego Novillo
for choosing to mentor me for this project. Unfortunately, I couldn't
reply last week because I am in the middle of university exams, I
apologize f
I've got ideas for improve the preprocessor with specific features.
The basic idea is to make the preprocessing language a complete
programming language.
That can be useful for includes things like Autotools and advanced
Makefiles directly in the source code, and have just a tiny Makefile for
comp
On 22 April 2014 14:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> One year and one month passed from the time when the last major version
> of the GNU Compiler Collection has been announced, so it is the time again
> to announce a new major GCC release, 4.9.0.
>
> GCC 4.9.0 is a major release containing substantial
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 07:55:00AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 04/22/2014 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > I've committed following fix as obvious after testing it with a
> > x86_64->sparc64-linux cross-compiler.
> >
> > 2014-04-22 Jakub Jelinek
> >
> > PR target/60910
> > *
On 04/22/2014 12:26 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I've committed following fix as obvious after testing it with a
> x86_64->sparc64-linux cross-compiler.
>
> 2014-04-22 Jakub Jelinek
>
> PR target/60910
> * config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_init_modes): Pass enum machine_mode
> value
Richard Sandiford wrote:
Returning to this old thread...
Richard Sandiford writes:
Tejas Belagod writes:
When I relaxed CANNOT_CHANGE_MODE_CLASS to undefined for AArch64,
gcc.c-torture/execute/copysign1.c generates incorrect code because LRA cannot
seem to handle subregs like
(subreg:DI (
Status
==
GCC 4.9.0 has been released, the branch is now open again under the usual
release branch rules (regression fixes and documentation fixes only).
The next release, 4.9.1, should be released in about two or three months
from now, unless something very urgent forces us to release earlier
One year and one month passed from the time when the last major version
of the GNU Compiler Collection has been announced, so it is the time again
to announce a new major GCC release, 4.9.0.
GCC 4.9.0 is a major release containing substantial new
functionality not available in GCC 4.8.x or previou
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ondřej Bílka wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53:45AM +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > For a "quick" GCC implementation of the builtins you could expand
> > > them t
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 03:41:53PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:41:56AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> >> For a "quick" GCC implementation of the builtins you could expand
> >> them to a op
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 05:51:04PM -0400, Michael Meissner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 08:02:39PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Sure, we could change this to use mode_size_inline ((enum machine_mode)
> > (MODE))
> > in the macro instead, but I'd say for GCC codebase it is better if we fix
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
