[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2012-07-10 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16314 Richard Earnshaw rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2005-11-28 Thread nekkar at libero dot it
--- Comment #13 from nekkar at libero dot it 2005-11-28 18:14 --- Hi Richard Could you explain us in details what would be in your opinion the best solution to this problem? Should we create a new maverick crunch target with specific division code or what else? --

[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2005-11-26 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #12 from rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-26 22:44 --- *** Bug 25044 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2004-11-23 Thread rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-23 11:03 --- Subject: Re: EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3 On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 06:04, zhangyijin_2008 at 163 dot com wrote: I use this function and I test it can run ok. But I don`t know can it run ok

[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2004-11-22 Thread zhangyijin_2008 at 163 dot com
--- Additional Comments From zhangyijin_2008 at 163 dot com 2004-11-23 06:04 --- (In reply to comment #8) Subject: Re: EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3 On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 16:17, dank at kegel dot com wrote: --- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com

[Bug target/16314] EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3

2004-11-22 Thread zhangyijin_2008 at 163 dot com
--- Additional Comments From zhangyijin_2008 at 163 dot com 2004-11-23 06:06 --- (In reply to comment #8) Subject: Re: EP9312 gcc: undefined reference to __divdf3 On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 16:17, dank at kegel dot com wrote: --- Additional Comments From dank at kegel dot com