--- Comment #25 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-18 08:53
---
Tentatively.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from ro at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-03 16:03 ---
Subject: Bug 42843
Author: ro
Date: Fri Sep 3 16:02:37 2010
New Revision: 163833
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=163833
Log:
PR testsuite/42843
* Makefile.in (PLUGINCC): Define in
--- Comment #23 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 15:10
---
This part:
* Makefile.in (PLUGINCC): Define as $(COMPILER).
(PLUGINCFLAGS): Define as $(COMPILER_FLAGS).
is wrong and broke again plugins testing with the C compiler on non-C99 native
platforms
--- Comment #22 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-17 07:20 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Created an attachment (id=21188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21188&action=view) [edit]
> proposed patch
>
> This patch should restore the use of the previous stage
--- Comment #21 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-16 08:39 ---
Subject: Bug 42843
Author: iains
Date: Fri Jul 16 08:39:37 2010
New Revision: 162254
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=162254
Log:
2010-07-16 Jack Howarth
PR testsuite/42843
--- Comment #20 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-14 20:23
---
(In reply to comment #11)
> I wonder if there is any overlap with this bug and PR29404/42308?
libiberty doesn't use $(toplevel_builddir)/gcc/site.exp, so there is no
direct connection, but libiberty/Makefile.in al
--- Comment #18 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-13
13:06 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Subject: Re: --enable-build-with-cxx plugin tests fail
>
> > This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for
> > plugins.
>
> Indeed: with the exception
--- Comment #17 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE 2010-07-13
10:16 ---
Subject: Re: --enable-build-with-cxx plugin tests fail
> This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for plugins.
Indeed: with the exception of the $(ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX) handling,
--- Comment #16 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 22:40
---
Created an attachment (id=21188)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21188&action=view)
proposed patch
This patch should restore the use of the previous stage compiler for plugins.
--
http://g
--- Comment #15 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 22:25
---
COMPILER is based on $(CC) / $(CXX), which during testing are overridden
to become the host compiler, i.e. stage 0 for a bootstrap, so to speak.
We want to use @CC@ / @CXX@ to use the same compiler that the latest
--- Comment #14 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 15:00 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> I'll have to check the config.log more carefully.
OK. possible a can of wiggly things here...
case "${host}" in
*-*-darwin*)
export_sym_check="$gcc_cv_nm -g" <=== maybe the
--- Comment #13 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 13:28 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #10)
>
> > Is there any cross-tool known to support plugins? (I get no response for
> > cris-elf, s390x, mipsia64 and armel-linux-gnueabi). No error, just silently
>
--- Comment #12 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 13:19 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Is there any cross-tool known to support plugins? (I get no response for
> cris-elf, s390x, mipsia64 and armel-linux-gnueabi). No error, just silently
> skips all plugin tests.
hmm this
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-12
13:05 ---
I wonder if there is any overlap with this bug and PR29404/42308?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42843
--- Comment #10 from iains at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-12 12:54 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > Perhaps we just need something like...
> In the native boostrap case, you probably want
> CC_FOR_TARGET / CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET / CXX_FOR_TARGET / CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARG
--- Comment #9 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 04:22 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Perhaps we just need something like...
No, COMPILER uses CC, too.
The issue is the the toplevel Makefile check-gcc rule
forces CC in the gcc/Makefile via EXTRA_HOST_FLAGS
In the native bo
--- Comment #8 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-11
02:36 ---
Perhaps we just need something like...
Index: gcc/Makefile.in
===
--- gcc/Makefile.in (revision 162051)
+++ gcc/Makefile.in (workin
--- Comment #7 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-11 01:58 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This still looks broken. Under a normal bootstrap, on x86_64-apple-darwin10,
> these new testcases are silently executed against the system compiler rather
> than the newly built compiler..
--- Comment #6 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-07-10
21:44 ---
This still looks broken. Under a normal bootstrap, on x86_64-apple-darwin10,
these new testcases are silently executed against the system compiler rather
than the newly built compiler...
Executing on build
--- Comment #5 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 10:49 ---
Fixed in trunk by revision 160461.
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-09 10:40 ---
Subject: Bug 42843
Author: amylaar
Date: Wed Jun 9 10:40:28 2010
New Revision: 160461
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=160461
Log:
gcc:
PR testsuite/42843
* gcc-plugin.h (int p
--- Comment #3 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-06-08 20:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> A patch is here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg01200.html
This is an update of the patch to revision 160389:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-06/msg00822.html
--
--- Comment #2 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-30 05:20 ---
Subject: Bug 42843
Author: amylaar
Date: Sat Jan 30 05:20:40 2010
New Revision: 156380
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156380
Log:
gcc:
PR testsuite/42843
* Makefile.in (HOST_P
--- Comment #1 from amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-23 00:00 ---
A patch is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-01/msg01200.html
--
amylaar at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
24 matches
Mail list logo
