On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:13 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 25 October 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>>
On 25 October 2016 at 15:49, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>
>>> >> Thanks for your feedback. I had missed removing some unwanted code
>>> >> while
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>
>> >> Thanks for your feedback. I had missed removing some unwanted code
>> >> while code cleanup. I have updated the patch.
>> >> I am not sure if we should move all gimple
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> >> Thanks for your feedback. I had missed removing some unwanted code
> >> while code cleanup. I have updated the patch.
> >> I am not sure if we should move all gimple parsing related functions
> >> to the new file (?)
> >
> > I think it might be good
On 14 September 2016 at 18:54, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> On 26 August 2016 at 14:28, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Prasad
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:24:18PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > PING.
>> >
>> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01837.html
>>
>> (that was a ping for the C FE maintainers)
>>
>> Prasad, can you update
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 03:24:18PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > PING.
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-08/msg01837.html
>
> (that was a ping for the C FE maintainers)
>
> Prasad, can you update the git branch with the changes from the last patch you
> sent out? I don't think
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 26 August 2016 at 14:28, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 24 August 2016 at 15:32, Richard Biener
On 26 August 2016 at 14:28, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> On 24 August 2016 at 15:32, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Prasad
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 5:08 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 24 August 2016 at 15:32, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Prasad Ghangal
>> wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders
On 24 August 2016 at 15:32, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Prasad Ghangal
> wrote:
>> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As a part of my gsoc project. I have completed the
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Prasad Ghangal
wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 21:15, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 23 August 2016 at 02:56, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 00:10 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
On 23 August 2016 at 21:15, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 23 August 2016 at 02:56, David Malcolm wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 00:10 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders
>>> wrote:
>>> >
On 23 August 2016 at 02:56, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 00:10 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 09:46:50AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On 08/22/2016 10:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> it has no problems, whereas with the default for gcc 5 and earlier:
> >>
> >> $ gcc -c test.cc
On 08/23/2016 08:46 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> I believe that only stage 1 is built with -std=gnu++98 forced, and also
>> stage 1 is built without -Werror, so I think you'd need to start with a
>> compiler that predates
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 08/22/2016 10:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>> it has no problems, whereas with the default for gcc 5 and earlier:
>>
>> $ gcc -c test.cc -std=gnu++98
>> test.cc:3:15: warning: non-static data member initializers
On 08/22/2016 10:26 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> it has no problems, whereas with the default for gcc 5 and earlier:
>
> $ gcc -c test.cc -std=gnu++98
> test.cc:3:15: warning: non-static data member initializers only
> available with -std=c++11 or -std=gnu++11
>int field = 42;
>
On Tue, 2016-08-23 at 00:10 +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
[...]
> > @@ -228,6 +228,12 @@ struct GTY(()) function {
> >/* GIMPLE body for this
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:10:29AM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> As a part of my gsoc project. I have completed the following
On 22 August 2016 at 16:55, Trevor Saunders wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As a part of my gsoc project. I have completed the following tasks:
>>
>> * Parsed gimple-expression
>> * Parsed gimple-labels
>> * Parsed
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:35:17PM +0530, Prasad Ghangal wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As a part of my gsoc project. I have completed the following tasks:
>
> * Parsed gimple-expression
> * Parsed gimple-labels
> * Parsed local declaration
> * Parsed gimple-goto statement
> * Parsed gimple-if-else
Hi all,
As a part of my gsoc project. I have completed the following tasks:
* Parsed gimple-expression
* Parsed gimple-labels
* Parsed local declaration
* Parsed gimple-goto statement
* Parsed gimple-if-else statement
* Parsed gimple-switch statement
* Parsed gimple-return statement
* Parsed
24 matches
Mail list logo