On 05/22/2014 06:56 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
Hi!
Now that GCC again is in development stage, and with fresh hope to have
someone review this patch submission, after having let the issue rest for
several months: I just re-tested the current versions. Still there are
no changes for a regular
Hi!
Now that GCC again is in development stage, and with fresh hope to have
someone review this patch submission, after having let the issue rest for
several months: I just re-tested the current versions. Still there are
no changes for a regular build (not using the new configure options).
On
Hi!
Ping.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:59:50 +0100, I wrote:
Ping, after another month. I've only received a private note from one
build machinery manintainer who found this beyond his level of expertise,
and wished me luck to find someone else to review. Any takers in the new
year?
On Sat,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Thomas Schwinge
tho...@codesourcery.com wrote:
Hi!
Ping.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014 12:59:50 +0100, I wrote:
Ping, after another month. I've only received a private note from one
build machinery manintainer who found this beyond his level of expertise,
and wished
Hi!
Ping, after another month. I've only received a private note from one
build machinery manintainer who found this beyond his level of expertise,
and wished me luck to find someone else to review. Any takers in the new
year?
On Sat, 14 Dec 2013 13:12:28 +0100, I wrote:
Ping, after another
Hi!
Ping, after another month. Reposting the patches below; freshly
re-tested, both to cause no change if the new configure options are not
used, and to do the right thing if they are.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2013 14:52:37 +0100, I wrote:
Could a global maintainer or build machinery maintainer please
Hi!
Could a global maintainer or build machinery maintainer please review the
two unreviewed patches posted in this series?
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013 10:13:39 -0800, Cary Coutant ccout...@google.com wrote:
Ping. To sum it up, with these patches applied, there are no changes for
a regular build
Ping. To sum it up, with these patches applied, there are no changes for
a regular build (not using the new configure options). On the other
hand, configuring GCC as described, it is possible use the 32-bit x86
linker for/with a x86_64 build, and get the very same GCC test results as
when
Hi!
Ping.
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:23:24 +0200, I wrote:
Ping. To sum it up, with these patches applied, there are no changes for
a regular build (not using the new configure options). On the other
hand, configuring GCC as described, it is possible use the 32-bit x86
linker for/with a
Hi!
Ping. To sum it up, with these patches applied, there are no changes for
a regular build (not using the new configure options). On the other
hand, configuring GCC as described, it is possible use the 32-bit x86
linker for/with a x86_64 build, and get the very same GCC test results as
when
Hi!
On Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:20:19 +0200, I wrote:
This is a bit of a weird scenario -- but it is supposed to work fine in
my opinion (but doesn't).
I have a GNU toolchain as 32-bit x86 GNU/Linux executables, configured to
to generate code for 32-bit x86 by default, and using -m64 for x86_64.
11 matches
Mail list logo
