On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 01:52:22AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
Hi,
(2013/12/04 9:52), Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
Matthias Klose wrote:
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least
6 matches
Mail list logo
