On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:11:46 -0700 Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: > > >> what happens if you use --disable-libunwind-exceptions > > > > As far as I know we have not tried that. Doesn't this change some of the > > processing though for systems that use unwind as the only way to generate > > proper back traces? > > we already disable it for gcc-runtime and libgcc recipes where it would > matter too. For what it's worth, --disable-libunwind-exceptions doesn't seem to prevent the failure. In file included from /home/seebs/tct/t00/bitbake_build/tmp/work-shared/gcc-4.8. 0-r0/gcc-4.8.0/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/eh_arm.cc:26:0: /home/seebs/tct/t00/bitbake_build/tmp/work-shared/gcc-4.8.0-r0/gcc-4.8.0/libstdc ++-v3/libsupc++/unwind-cxx.h:92:3: error: '_Unwind_Ptr' does not name a type [... and many, many, more] This appears to be identical to what we get without --disable-libunwind-exceptions. It may be that that isn't fully implemented for libsupc++. -s -- Listen, get this. Nobody with a good compiler needs to be justified. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
