[doc] Add John Marino to doc/contrib.texi (was: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly)

2015-04-09 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
On Wed, 21 May 2014, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-dragonfly3.6 and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, committed to trunk as http://gcc.gnu.org/r210694 John, thanks for contributing the target support and for persevering with the review process :-) And here is the

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-13 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12 May 2014 18:14, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/12/14 11:10, John Marino wrote: On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote: 1) Patch updated online as requested 2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files 3) I might debate that we should

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote: On 5/9/2014 07:26, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote: In config.gcc: +no | gnat | single) + # Let these non-posix thread selections fall through if requested Support for gnat as a thread model was removed in 2011. So I think

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-12 Thread John Marino
On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote: 1) Patch updated online as requested 2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files 3) I might debate that we should share the files - that would imply reviewing the existing counterpart files for

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-12 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/12/14 11:10, John Marino wrote: On 5/12/2014 18:59, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/09/14 01:14, John Marino wrote: 1) Patch updated online as requested 2) At this exact point in time, we probably can share the files 3) I might debate that we should share the files - that would imply reviewing

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-09 Thread John Marino
On 5/9/2014 07:26, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote: In config.gcc: +no | gnat | single) + # Let these non-posix thread selections fall through if requested Support for gnat as a thread model was removed in 2011. So I think you need to remove that case. I

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 3 May 2014 08:11, John Marino wrote: On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc) The default presumption should be: *

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-08 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/08/14 07:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Ian's approved the libiberty.h change, Joseph's approved the stddef.h change, I've approved the libstdc++ parts. IIUC it still needs explicit approval for the rest, e.g. trivial adjustments to configuration stuff in libitm and libcilkrts. Are there

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-08 Thread John Marino
On 5/8/2014 15:32, Jeff Law wrote: On 05/08/14 07:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Anyone willing to give it an overall approval? I'll take a look at the rest. I mostly wanted someone else to deal with stddef.h :-) Thanks Jeff! I'm am very appreciative of that. John

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-08 Thread Jeff Law
On 05/03/14 01:11, John Marino wrote: revised patchset : http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/patches/patch-dragonfly-target revised changelog : http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/~marino/gcc-df-target/changelog_entries/gcc_ChangeLog_entry.txt revised commit msg:

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-03 Thread John Marino
On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc) The default presumption should be: * stddef.h from GCC provides what it needs to

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-02 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: So given the track record (building itself, building base, building 21,000 software ports) over a couple of years I think any issues this could have caused would have been seen and identified by now. These issues aren't generally obvious (given that the

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-02 Thread John Marino
On 5/2/2014 19:49, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: http://grok.dragonflybsd.org/xref/dragonfly/sys/sys/types.h That's definitely not correct to include in stddef.h; it defines lots of types outside the ISO C namespace. Ok. So I guess there are two problems.

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-02 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc) The default presumption should be: * stddef.h from GCC provides what it needs to provide; nothing extra is needed and such a

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-02 Thread John Marino
On 5/2/2014 22:15, Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Fri, 2 May 2014, John Marino wrote: 1) I don't know which type definitions are missing (iow, the important ones from sys/type.h that are required to build gcc) The default presumption should be: * stddef.h from GCC provides what it needs to

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-01 Thread Joseph S. Myers
The include of sys/types.h from stddef.h seems risky, given that that's a POSIX header that typically defines various types ISO C does not permit to be defined in stddef.h (ISO C does not have any general *_t namespace reservation, unlike POSIX). Have you verified that if you include stddef.h

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-05-01 Thread John Marino
On 5/2/2014 01:03, Joseph S. Myers wrote: The include of sys/types.h from stddef.h seems risky, given that that's a POSIX header that typically defines various types ISO C does not permit to be defined in stddef.h (ISO C does not have any general *_t namespace reservation, unlike POSIX).

[PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-04-29 Thread John Marino
Hi folks, Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for the DragonFly targets? It's a blocker for other patches of mine that have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go in first. Thanks, John On 4/20/2014 21:04, John Marino wrote: On

Re: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-04-29 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote: Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for the DragonFly targets? It's a blocker for other patches of mine that have a more general benefit, but this (relatively simple) one has to go in first.

Re: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-04-29 Thread John Marino
On 4/29/2014 19:23, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote: Does anyone have any issues with this set of patches to add support for the DragonFly targets? It's a blocker for other patches of mine that have a more general benefit, but this

Re: [PING] Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-04-29 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:37 PM, John Marino gnu...@marino.st wrote: I don't understand the benefit of libgcc/enable-execute-stack-bsd.c. The code seems the same as the existing libgcc/enable-execute-stack-mprotect.c. All you are changing is omitting need_enable_exec_stack. If you just drop

Re: Contributing new gcc targets: i386-*-dragonfly and x86-64-*-dragonfly

2014-04-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 19 April 2014 20:39, John Marino wrote: Hello GCC developers, For the last few years, I have been maintaining a large set of patches that add support for the DragonFly BSD target and also complete Ada frontend support on all four major BSDs among other things. Before I can submit patches