On 12/30/2013 12:22 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Sorry, I forgot that the paths are different for cross-compilers. It
should
be
/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/lib/gcc/arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf/4.8.2/include/d/gcc/libbacktrace.di
Just to be sure: You also don't get a backtrace with symbols even if
Am Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:15:47 -0800
schrieb Ellery Newcomer :
> On 12/21/2013 04:04 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >>>
> >>> flags I'm using: -fdebug -g
> >>
> >> No libbacktrace support on ARM?
> >
> > Libbacktrace is actually supported on ARM and stacktraces works just
> > fine, even with cross-compi
On 12/21/2013 04:04 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
flags I'm using: -fdebug -g
No libbacktrace support on ARM?
Libbacktrace is actually supported on ARM and stacktraces works just
fine, even with cross-compilers. There must be a problem with your gdc
build, Ellery. Can you check the contents of
in
Am Sun, 15 Dec 2013 21:42:37 +
schrieb Iain Buclaw :
> On 15 December 2013 20:37, Ellery Newcomer
> wrote:
> > On 12/15/2013 12:45 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >>
> >> You can use 'strip' (arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-strip) to get your
> >> 11MB hello world to a reasonable size.
> >>
> >
> > righ
On 14 December 2013 22:24, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:16:13 +
> schrieb Iain Buclaw :
>
>> On 14 December 2013 20:21, Ellery Newcomer
>> wrote:
>> > On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to
>>
On 15 December 2013 20:37, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 12/15/2013 12:45 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>
>> You can use 'strip' (arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-strip) to get your 11MB
>> hello world to a reasonable size.
>>
>
> right.
>
> stack traces are a little less than helpful:
>
> object.Exception@src
On 12/15/2013 12:45 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
You can use 'strip' (arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi-strip) to get your 11MB
hello world to a reasonable size.
right.
stack traces are a little less than helpful:
object.Exception@src/robovero.d(82): expected length 1, got '[]'
0x25f0f
Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 18:04:07 -0800
schrieb Ellery Newcomer :
> On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ellery,
> >
> > it seems like crosstool-NG can't compile recent gcc-4.9 snapshots.
> > It's not a D or crosstool problem actually, GCC-4.9 for some reason
> > can't bootstrap glib
On 12/14/2013 02:21 PM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
Hi Ellery,
it seems like crosstool-NG can't compile recent gcc-4.9 snapshots. It's
not a D or crosstool problem actually, GCC-4.9 for some reason can't
bootstrap glibc.
I personally use this branch to test the cross-compiler:
https://github.com/jpf9
Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:16:13 +
schrieb Iain Buclaw :
> On 14 December 2013 20:21, Ellery Newcomer
> wrote:
> > On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> >>
> >> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to
> >> admit I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 t
Am Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:21:06 -0800
schrieb Ellery Newcomer :
> On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> > I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to
> > admit I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did
> > not cause any failing test cases in the test
On 14 December 2013 20:21, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
> On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>
>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>> any failing test cases in the test suite or f
On 12/09/2013 06:25 AM, Johannes Pfau wrote:
I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
on 2.064 is also good to go now and i
On 9 December 2013 16:11, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 15:17, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>>
On 9 December 2013 15:17, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau wrote:
>> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
>> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
>> any failing test cases in the test suite or failin
On 9 December 2013 14:25, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> I updated the ARM patches to the latest master version. I have to admit
> I was pleasantly surprised that going from 2.063 to 2.064 did not cause
> any failing test cases in the test suite or failing unit tests. So ARM
> on 2.064 is also good to go
16 matches
Mail list logo
