Daniel Jacobowitz | 1 Dec 01:01 2003

Re: [rfc] debugging anonymous unions

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 12:42:59PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:47:28PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> > Is there anything
> > interesting you can think of that GDB could do only if it knew there
> > was an anonymous union involved?
> 
> The only sligtly interesting thing is not having to replicate a large
> location list, with small or no perturbations based on offset.  Otherwise
> it makes sense to present gdb with multiple top-level variables.

For a single location expression, sure, but if there's a location list
couldn't you reference the same one?

--

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

aspiesrule | 1 Dec 01:09 2003
Picon

What's the point of libbanshee's existance?


Why do we have a libbanshee directory structure in the CVS tree that 
contains nothing but CVS overhead?

Lucas

Stuart McRobert | 1 Dec 01:09 2003
Picon
Picon

Re: PATCH: Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date

Hi,

You asked me to drop you a note once we had our new server
cluster up and running again.

	www.sunsite.org.uk
	ftp.sunsite.org.uk
	nfs.sunsite.org.uk

Are now taking the strain (old names include, sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk,
sunsite.org.uk, src.doc.ic.ac.uk, etc).

If you could do a quick check of our gnu mirror, currently from

	ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/gnu/

is all okay, and add an entry back into the mirrors.html list
that would be great.

Best wishes

	Stuart

> From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer <at> dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
> To: Stuart McRobert <sm <at> doc.ic.ac.uk>
> Cc: gcc <at> gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches <at> gcc.gnu.org,
>         william.gallafent <at> virgin.net
> In-Reply-To: <E19MjKy-0006HH-00 <at> duck.doc.ic.ac.uk>
> Subject: PATCH: Re: sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk mirror out of date
> 
(Continue reading)

Daniel Jacobowitz | 1 Dec 01:11 2003

Re: What's the point of libbanshee's existance?

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:09:19AM -0000, aspiesrule <at> mcleodusa.net wrote:
> 
> Why do we have a libbanshee directory structure in the CVS tree that 
> contains nothing but CVS overhead?

You may want to learn a little more about how CVS works.  Or search the
list archives for banshee.

It's filled on tree-ssa.

--

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Daniel Berlin | 1 Dec 01:10 2003

Re: What's the point of libbanshee's existance?


On Nov 30, 2003, at 7:09 PM, <aspiesrule <at> mcleodusa.net> wrote:

>
> Why do we have a libbanshee directory structure in the CVS tree that
> contains nothing but CVS overhead?

Exactly what are you talking about?

It exists on the tree-ssa branch, and contains quite a bit of code.
>

Andrew Pinski | 1 Dec 01:12 2003
Picon

Re: What's the point of libbanshee's existance?

On Nov 30, 2003, at 16:09, <aspiesrule <at> mcleodusa.net> wrote:
> Why do we have a libbanshee directory structure in the CVS tree that
> contains nothing but CVS overhead?

Do you know anything about branches at all?
This is used on the tree-ssa branch (read out about the branch on
http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/tree-ssa/).

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Phil Edwards | 1 Dec 01:14 2003

Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Phil Edwards <phil <at> codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> | Sorry, I just don't see what we gain from calling it 4.x when there's
> | no user-visible change big enough to deserve a bump in the major number.
> 
> Calling the huge infrastructure change on tree-ssa branch "no
> user-visible change big enough" is an exageration.

Huh?  It's /infrastructure/.  Why would users care how the internal guts
are arranged?  They don't, and they shouldn't.

--

-- 
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
    - Brian W. Kernighan

Ian Lance Taylor | 1 Dec 01:27 2003

Re: Will tree-ssa be GCC 3.5?

Phil Edwards <phil <at> codesourcery.com> writes:

> > Calling the huge infrastructure change on tree-ssa branch "no
> > user-visible change big enough" is an exageration.
> 
> Huh?  It's /infrastructure/.  Why would users care how the internal guts
> are arranged?  They don't, and they shouldn't.

Well, when it significantly changes the compiler output, they do, and
they should.

The compiler is not a black box.

Ian

Ian Lance Taylor | 1 Dec 01:30 2003

Re: What's the point of libbanshee's existance?

<aspiesrule <at> mcleodusa.net> writes:

> Why do we have a libbanshee directory structure in the CVS tree that 
> contains nothing but CVS overhead?

As a practical counterpoint to the other replies, put this in your
~/.cvsrc file:

checkout -P
update -P

Ian

Kelley Cook | 1 Dec 01:30 2003
Picon

Re: fastjar.info not installed any longer?

 > On current mainline (with --enable-languages=c,c++,objc,java) 
fastjar.info
 > is not installed any longer, even though it is created in the object 
tree.
 >
 > This is a change from 3.3, and given that we create that file, shouldn't
 > we also install it?

Initially I just regened Makefile.in with automake-1.4 --cygnus which 
will install the info file properly, but then make all would not 
generate the info file.

So I was about to modify the makeinfo hack to do just that, when I read 
that the hack existed solely because we were using automake 1.4.  Since 
some portions of GCC already require automake 1.7, I followed the 
comment's suggestions by defining AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS, deleting the hack 
and regen-ing with automake 1.7.6 and autoconf 2.57.

Whilst I was there I deleted four superfluous files since we do have a 
toplevel (this hunk would not apply to the fastjar mainline, if it is 
still active)

Bootstrapped and regtested i686-pc-cygwin.
make install now works as expected.

OK to install?

Kelley Cook

(Continue reading)


Gmane