Paul Colquhoun writes:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:32:44 lee wrote:
>> Neil Bothwick writes:
>> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:01 +0100, lee wrote:
> [...]
>> >> So if I'd never explicitly update everything but run emerge --sync
>> >> frequently,
On 12/26/2015 06:44 AM, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> Yes, using gcc-5.3.0 to recompile 5.3.0 with +jit worked.
Doing the same right now.
Does JIT make any difference yet when I recompile something with a
JIT-enabled gcc? Does any code in current gentoo actually use that already?
Neil Bothwick writes:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:01 +0100, lee wrote:
>
>> > As 4.9.3 is marked stable, I guess that's what'd you get per
>> > default.
>>
>> 4.8.5
>>
>> I'd have to run emerge --sync to know about more recent versions. How
>> is that supposed to be
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:32:44 lee wrote:
> Neil Bothwick writes:
> > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:01 +0100, lee wrote:
> >> > As 4.9.3 is marked stable, I guess that's what'd you get per
> >> > default.
> >>
> >> 4.8.5
> >>
> >> I'd have to run emerge --sync to know about more
David Haller writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, lee wrote:
>>Andrew Savchenko writes:
>>> There will be no 5.3.1 likely. Numeration scheme is changed from 5.x
>>> series: what was middle version is now major, what was minor is now
>>> middle. So 5.3
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:01 +0100, lee wrote:
> > As 4.9.3 is marked stable, I guess that's what'd you get per
> > default.
>
> 4.8.5
>
> I'd have to run emerge --sync to know about more recent versions. How
> is that supposed to be used, btw? I only run that when I do want to
> update
Hello,
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, lee wrote:
>Andrew Savchenko writes:
>> There will be no 5.3.1 likely. Numeration scheme is changed from 5.x
>> series: what was middle version is now major, what was minor is now
>> middle. So 5.3 is a patch version of 5.0 the same as 4.9.3 is a
Andrew Savchenko writes:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:40:48 -0800 walt wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
>> Alan Grimes wrote:
>>
>> > Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:40:48 -0800 walt wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
> Alan Grimes wrote:
>
> > Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
> >
> > Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am getting
> > differences between the stage 2 and stage 3
Hello,
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015, walt wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
>Alan Grimes wrote:
>
>> Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
>>
>> Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am getting
>> differences between the stage 2 and stage 3 compilers and
151225 walt wrote:
> You can work around the failure by installing 5.3.0
> with the -jit useflag (which should succeed) and *then* switch to 5.3.0
> using gcc-config before re-installing 5.3.0 with +jit.
So this is one of the 50 % cases where USE="-* ... " helps (smile).
--
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 14:00:55 Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:40:48 walt wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
> >
> > Alan Grimes wrote:
> > > Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
Alan Grimes wrote:
> Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
>
> Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am getting
> differences between the stage 2 and stage 3 compilers and it's
> dying... =(
I'm waiting for 5.3.1 before
On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 12:40:48 walt wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:18:27 -0500
>
> Alan Grimes wrote:
> > Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3...
> >
> > Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am getting
> > differences between the stage 2 and stage 3
14 matches
Mail list logo