On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
+! MULTILIB_DIRNAMES = n32 32 64
+! MULTILIB_DIRNAMES = 32 . 64
Why bother?
Stuff in rules.d (binary-libstdcxx.mk) assume that $biarch means put it
in a subdir name "64", and that $biarch32 means put it in a subdir named
"32".
: # remove
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 05:51:32AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Stuart Anderson wrote:
> > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > >
> > > >>ar and ld get confused if they are not set. For some reason, it can't
> > > >>decide which binary format to use. It may
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 05:51:32AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Stuart Anderson wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >
> > >>ar and ld get confused if they are not set. For some reason, it can't
> > >>decide which binary format to use. It may be a binutils bug, but I was
> > >>tr
Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> >>ar and ld get confused if they are not set. For some reason, it can't
> >>decide which binary format to use. It may be a binutils bug, but I was
> >>trying to not have to dig into that package and create a dependency on
> >>a
On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
ar and ld get confused if they are not set. For some reason, it can't
decide which binary format to use. It may be a binutils bug, but I was
trying to not have to dig into that package and create a dependency on
a specific patch level of yet another packa
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 01:31:23PM -0700, Stuart Anderson wrote:
> +# DP: Description: add full tri-arch support. Include linux64.h also fix up
> +# DP: Description: the directory names so that o32 is the default and follow
> +# DP: Description: the glibc convention for 32 & 64 bit names
Everyone
Stuart Anderson wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> >why can't the biarch-include patch not be used?
>
> It probably can. This is likely the result of my attempts to keep my
> changes some what isolated early on. I'll have a look at reducing this
> to the existing biarch patch.
On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Matthias Klose wrote:
why can't the biarch-include patch not be used?
It probably can. This is likely the result of my attempts to keep my
changes some what isolated early on. I'll have a look at reducing this
to the existing biarch patch.
as we don't have all required li
Stuart Anderson writes:
> Package: gcc-4.0
> Version: 4.0.2-4.1
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
>
> Please enable tri-arch support for the MIPS platforms. The attached
> patch (and a corresponding patch to glibc) provide support for n32 & n64
> ABIs in addition to the current o32 ABI. These
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.2-4.1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Please enable tri-arch support for the MIPS platforms. The attached
patch (and a corresponding patch to glibc) provide support for n32 & n64
ABIs in addition to the current o32 ABI. These patches have been tested
by building n32 &
10 matches
Mail list logo
