On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Yeah, It's been like that for months in a row. I'm sorry that
> this happens. I did see your posts at gcc@ and gcc-patches@ (I don't
> read gcc-help, though), and I can feel your pain... Believe me,
> I do want to get our gcc stuff upstream.
>
> As I
On Sunday 29 March 2009 11:53:09, Vincent R. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:02:05 +0100, Danny Backx
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 17:57 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Danny Backx wrote:
> >> > You'd also need :
> >> > - binutils (but that's already in good shape)
> >>
On Saturday 28 March 2009 16:57:09, Vincent Torri wrote:
> another thing: another Vincent proposed to move libce to mingw-w64 (there
> are already libw32 and libw64 there). What do you think of that ?
I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but I see no
point in that.
--
Pedro Alves
---
On Sun, 2009-03-29 at 12:53 +0200, Vincent R. wrote:
> Let's say I find a bug with cegcc, I wouldn't be able to report it because
> to be able to reproduce it gcc developpers will have
> to patch their sources and this case we cannot talk about gcc anymore, I
> don't think they want to help people
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:02:05 +0100, Danny Backx
wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 17:57 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Danny Backx wrote:
>> > You'd also need :
>> > - binutils (but that's already in good shape)
>> > - include files (IMO no distribution is good enough)
>> > - lib
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 17:57 +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Danny Backx wrote:
> > You'd also need :
> > - binutils (but that's already in good shape)
> > - include files (IMO no distribution is good enough)
> > - libraries to approach the CE DLLs (e.g. our libcoredll.a)
>
> ano
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Danny Backx wrote:
You'd also need :
- binutils (but that's already in good shape)
- include files (IMO no distribution is good enough)
- libraries to approach the CE DLLs (e.g. our libcoredll.a)
another thing: another Vincent proposed to move libce to mingw-w64 (there
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009, Danny Backx wrote:
> Let's see if I understand you correctly.
>
> The right approach would be to :
> - sync with gcc trunk now,
yes
> - get our stuff stable,
yes
> - provide all patches to the gcc folks asap
yes
I'm a yes-man
> Or do you suggest another approach ?
an
You'd also need :
- binutils (but that's already in good shape)
- include files (IMO no distribution is good enough)
- libraries to approach the CE DLLs (e.g. our libcoredll.a)
Danny
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 11:17 -0300, Pablo Rogina wrote:
> Now my turn to try to catch up Vincent's suggesti
Now my turn to try to catch up Vincent's suggestion:
Once the Cegcc committers (mainly Danny and Pedro) have done the steps
Danny mentioned, and the patches have been accepted and applied by the
gcc folks, at some point in time installing gcc will be the only
necessary software to be able to produ
Let's see if I understand you correctly.
The right approach would be to :
- sync with gcc trunk now,
- get our stuff stable,
- provide all patches to the gcc folks asap
Or do you suggest another approach ?
My vote would be YES.
Danny
On Sat, 2009-03-28 at 09:10 +0100, Vincent Torri wro
Hey,
gcc is finally branched. Is it the time to add cegcc support directly in
the main tree, now ?
Vincent
--
___
Cegcc-devel mailing list
Cegcc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
h
12 matches
Mail list logo
