Hello Gabriel. Thank you for the confirmation. Regards, Abdullah. On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 9:21 PM Gabriel Ravier, <gabravier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2/8/22 01:17, Abdullah Siddiqui via Gcc-help wrote: > > Jonathan, > > > > Thank you for the clarification. > > > > Can I still refer to the code in the GitHub repo for the latest source > code > > of GCC or is it obsolete? > > Although the repository is unofficial, it does appear to be up to date > with GCC's git repository (although perhaps with a few minutes/hours of > delay, but that shouldn't be a problem for most purposes). > > > Waiting for your reply. > > > > Regards, > > Abdullah. > > > > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022, 6:35 PM Jonathan Wakely, <jwakely.gcc@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 23:04, Abdullah Siddiqui < > >> siddiquiabdullah92@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> Hello Jonathan. > >>> > >>> Thank you for the quick response. > >>> > >>> I got 14% from the following GitHub page: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc > >>> > >>> Am I not looking at the correct source for the GCC source code? > >>> > >> That's an unofficial mirror that's nothing to do with the GCC project, > but > >> it does have a copy of the right sources. Those numbers are wrong > though. > >> It counts several .h and .C files as C when they are C++. It's a rough > >> estimate based on simple heuristics done automatically by GitHub. The > true > >> number is higher. > >> > >> It also looks like they haven't updated those numbers since April last > >> year, so it will wrongly count all .c files as C even the ones which > >> contain C++ instead. A huge number of files were renamed from .c to .cc > >> recently, because they contain C++ and so had a misleading .c extension. > >> That doesn't seem to be accounted for in those numbers. > >> > >> > >> >
