> From: David Malcolm
>
> Thanks Modi.
>
> Before looking at the updated patch in detail, we ought to also address the
> legal prerequisites for contributing.
>
> Does your employer have legal paperwork in place with the FSF for such
> contributions? See:
>
>
@gcc.gnu.org ;
r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de ;
mikest...@comcast.net ; ja...@redhat.com
; Jonathan Wakely ; Richard Biener
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: GCC selftest improvements
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:58 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The patch will ne
On Tue, 2020-02-25 at 19:58 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for
> > "Tools/packages necessary for building GCC" in
> > gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently has some paragraphs labelled:
> >@item ISO C++98
> On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> The patch will need an update to the docs; search for
> "Tools/packages necessary for building GCC" in
> gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently has some paragraphs labelled:
>@item ISO C++98 compiler
> that will need changing.
Added this change in
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 22:18 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > >
> > > Some nitpicks:
> > >
> > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So
Hi!
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 10:18:27PM +, Modi Mo via gcc wrote:
> Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html
I said as long as 4.8.5 works, it is fine with me. If 4.8.2 can be made
to work easily that is useful for the few people who
> On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Thanks for the patch.
> >
> > Some nitpicks:
> >
> > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10
> > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this
> > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of
On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 00:49 +, Modi Mo wrote:
Hey all,
I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that
the timing wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is
the timing better now to get this change through?
I've
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 00:49 +, Modi Mo wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that
> the timing wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is
> the timing better now to get this change through?
>
> I've attached the patch Andrew
Hey all,
I'm picking this work up from Andrew. Last time it was decided that the timing
wasn't right to upgrade the minimum version to C++11. Is the timing better now
to get this change through?
I've attached the patch Andrew prepared. Can I get feedback on the change and
some help testing on
10 matches
Mail list logo
