* DJ Delorie wrote on Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 03:51:15AM CET:
>
> > To work around this issue with gcc-4.1.x (I do not use it for gcc-4.0.x
> > nor gcc-4.2), I am using this hack below.
>
> We have that hack, plus a few others. I originally asked about this
> because I'd rather not have to keep hac
> > IMHO autoconf's test shouldn't be so sensitive to whitespace
> > changes.
>
> You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it more right.
Since I'm merely stating my opinion, by definition it is right.
Whether or not the test should change is, of course, debatable.
But I fail to see the poin
* DJ Delorie wrote on Fri, Feb 02, 2007 at 02:42:41PM CET:
>
> > > IMHO autoconf's test shouldn't be so sensitive to whitespace
> > > changes.
> >
> > You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it more right.
>
> Since I'm merely stating my opinion, by definition it is right.
Certainly. Sorry
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 13:49 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Not any more. Nowadays every configured subdirectory gets its own cache.
>
> Hmmm... I thought our source tree was up to date. I wonder if that
> would "solve" our problem.
FWIW:
I am observing the "CFLAGS" issue in newlib-1.15.0 with gc
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 21:29 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I am observing the "CFLAGS" issue in newlib-1.15.0 with gcc < 4.2, but I
> > am not observing this issue with gcc >= 4.2.
> >
> > So, I am suspecting the "CFLAGS" leak in GCC's toplevel Makefile.in
> > triggering the ".. change since previou
* quoting myself:
>
> I should have a working patch soon which adds a
> macro file to newlib which will allow you to continue to use stock 2.59.
Please try this patch for newlib.
I need some help if I should prepare a patch for all of GCC + binutils:
For which part of the tree can I refer to the
> Independently, I would anyway be interested in issues that keep you
> (GCC, binutils, ...) from moving to 2.61 rather than 2.60 or 2.59.
I suspect a major issue is that "popular development platforms" still
only have 2.59 on them. Making sure that everyone knows which version
is the right one,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm forwarding this mail to the autoconf list to remind me to take time in
the near future to turn it into a good texinfo flow.
According to Bruno Haible on 2/2/2007 8:52 AM:
> Hello Eric,
>
> Thanks for writing some doc about this. Indeed this area
