From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Craig Burley To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: g77 configuring, docs (was Re: 970825 Snapshot Available) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 06:19:01 -0000 Message-id: <199708270645.CAA06014@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-reply-to: g77 configuring, docs (was Re: 970825 Snapshot Available) X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0596.html >I'm tempted to do both a gcc2 -> egcs and f77dev -> egcs merge >as soon as we get the first release out the door. I don't think >we want to introduce too much new code this close to a release. The patches to fix up the g77 docs are *very* safe, in case you're wondering -- aside from deleting a gratuitous (and non-conforming-in-ANSI-C ;-) comma after the last item in an enum, they affect only the documentation, not the compiler or the library. (I'm referring to patches to intdoc.c, intrin.h, the intdoc.in->intdoc.h renaming, and so on.) Generally, the fixes I'm making to other parts of g77 are quite safe too, because I have a release coming up in less than a week, but only alpha testing and the release itself will "prove" just how safe these fixes are. One of the reasons I did the intdoc.in->intdoc.h change *now*, instead of putting it off, is that I wanted to reduce the size of future .diff files that would be needed to make the effective rename. g77 0.5.20 already had intdoc.h, it is true, but it was quite small compared to the one pending for 0.5.21, which is "full" (every single intrinsic documented!), so it seemed like now was a worthwhile time to switch. In the larger scale of egcs, I doubt this concern would amount to much, as I expect the part of a future release->release patch to rename intdoc.in to intdoc.h will amount to less than 1% of the total patch. ;-) tq vm, (burley) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Some Linux patches Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:33:17 -0000 Message-ID: <199708270645.CAA06014@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-reply-to: Some Linux patches X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0597.html Message-ID: <19970827073317.vFtCTVspMU0GOZAuQ8-S9qp6d7BMCHU5cfk1yVdApM0@z> In message you write: > Hi, > > Here are 2 Linux patches. I've installed these patches. However, in the future, can you _please_ tell us what problem you're trying to solve with each patch. It wastes our time to have to recreate whatever analysis you've already done in the process of creating a patch to fix a problem. Jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: HAVE_STDLIB_H Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:36:27 -0000 Message-ID: <199708270645.CAA06014@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0598.html Message-ID: <19970827073627.t4anfu-smjoeu3hQSBuM2E3xNKqsPhsJopLdWYT2yGM@z> Note, the HAVE_STDLIB_H patches are breaking builds under sunos4. These either need to be installed compiler-wide or not installed at all. The basic problem is our good friend "free", which conflicts with the declaration in tree.h and stdlib.h And we can't just simply take out the decl in tree.h because some code doesn't include stdlib.h yet. Jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeffrey A Law To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: A config patch Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 07:58:51 -0000 Message-ID: <199708270645.CAA06014@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-reply-to: A config patch X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0599.html Message-ID: <19970827075851.V9x5k2nf2s9CShxcyPHo7seD01FiVvGL0K283p7ezVw@z> In message you write: > A small patch for egcs. > > > -- > H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu) > --- > Mon Aug 25 17:31:49 1997 H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu) > > * mh-alphapic, mt-alphapic: New. I see no point to this patch. There's no reference to these files in the toplevel configure.in; therefore, they will never be used. Furthermore, it is my understanding that the alpha ports generate PIC code by default (thus making -fPIC and -fpic meaningless for the alpha). Again, I have to ask, what problem are you trying to solve with this patch? jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lassi A. Tuura To: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: Test run and a question Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:07:15 -0000 Message-ID: <199708270645.CAA06014@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-reply-to: Test run and a question X-SW-Source: 1997-08/0600.html Message-ID: <19970827080715.G9jYE43l5r4TduHerra9iTAl8Y3puf89_JYIacCq-aE@z> Mike Stump wrote: > > when support for namespaces > > The standard answer is when you add support and get it in, then it > will be in. :-) Talking as one who knows *very* little about gcc internals... How big an effort are we talking about here? I would presume the template/namespace twistedness (Koenig rules) is the most difficult part... //lat -- Lassi.Tuura@cern.ch There's no sunrise without a night