On Mar 13, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:42:44AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> I won't bother to post a revised patch. Ok to install?
> Huh? Okay to install what? =)O|
A patch I had posted to binutils only, that fixes the old libtool
versi
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:42:44AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2000, Geoff Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You want to use exactly the same tools to do the relink as the user
> > specified when doing the original link. So you want to use the same
> > options, and the same
On Mar 12, 2000, Geoff Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You want to use exactly the same tools to do the relink as the user
> specified when doing the original link. So you want to use the same
> options, and the same environment variables.
Yup
> All the user has to know is that there's ma
> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:33:15 -0800
> From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I think the right thing to do is to arrange for the libtool
> > wrapper/relinker script to set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX, COMPILER_PATH and
> > LIBRARY_PATH to the values they had when the wrapper script was
> > created, i
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 03:33:15PM -0800, H . J . Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:46:05PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The new gcc calls collect2.
> > > 2. collect2 calls ld/ld-new.
> > > 3. ld/ld-new uses the new g
On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 07:46:05PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 1. The new gcc calls collect2.
> > 2. collect2 calls ld/ld-new.
> > 3. ld/ld-new uses the new gcc to relink the new ld.
>
> No. It's using the old GCC, but it is not
On Mar 10, 2000, "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The new gcc calls collect2.
> 2. collect2 calls ld/ld-new.
> 3. ld/ld-new uses the new gcc to relink the new ld.
No. It's using the old GCC, but it is not using the old linker,
because the environment variables that the external comp
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Mar 2000 13:22:19 -0800
From: Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-reply-to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: ld/Makefile
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 16:52:32 +0100
From: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|> Executing a shell script does use a bit more memory, but only just
|> enough for "/bin/sh" and the name of the script to execute. If that
|> is pushing H.J. over the memory limit, then he must have b
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> I'm still surprised by something here. The error message which
|> H.J. cites is from libiberty/pexecute.c. That means that the exec
|> which should start the shell script is failing. The case is precisely
|> identical from the point of view of gc
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 23:10:39 +0100
From: Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:50:59 -0800
|>From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>
|>I know this patch doesn't look very clean. But I don't
Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:50:59 -0800
|>From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|>
|>I know this patch doesn't look very clean. But I don't know automake
|>well enough to make it better. Here is the problem I am trying to fix.
|>I
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 11:58:15AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:50:59 -0800
>From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I know this patch doesn't look very clean. But I don't know automake
>well enough to make it better. Here is the problem I am trying t
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 11:50:59 -0800
From: "H . J . Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I know this patch doesn't look very clean. But I don't know automake
well enough to make it better. Here is the problem I am trying to fix.
I got:
# /work/ia64/bin/cygnus/2303/gcc/xgcc
-B/usr/ia64-
14 matches
Mail list logo
