Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1
> packages:
>
> a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support)
As Redhat has demonstrated in the past, it is highly desirable that
the distributed gcc is based on a released gcc
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1
> > packages:
> >
> > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support)
>
> As Redhat has demonstrated in th
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1
> > > packages:
> > >
> > > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 suppor
John David Anglin writes:
> > While preparing gcc-3.1 packages I noticed many eh-related regressions
> > fixed in the trunk, when dwarf2 support was added. With Dave's
> > guidance I made a diff of the pa subdirectory from the trunk and
> > applied it to the branch. Although many FAILS are gone, th
Jeff Bailey writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Considering the "confusion" of having gcc272 as default C compiler
> > and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch
> > switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all
> > a
Recipient of the infected attachment: Jan Spurny\Inbox
Subject of the message: FREE!
One or more attachments were deleted
Attachment target.pif was Deleted for the following reasons:
Virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] was found.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsub
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:01:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for
> > hurd-i386? Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd
> > like to file the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it
> > updated and need to know if I
> this is a diff of the test results for b and c. g++ is worse, the
I think all the new g++ fails are in new tests. So, I don't think
g++ is actually worse.
> regressions for g77 and gcc are new test cases in the trunk. One new
> gcc regression:
Yes, gcc.c-torture/compile/2504-1.c is a regr
John David Anglin writes:
> Thanks. Could you try the following patch, please?
yes, allows the bootstrap.
> --- 5ntaprop.adb.~1.3.~ Sun Mar 17 09:08:21 2002
> +++ 5ntaprop.adb Sun Apr 28 22:42:59 2002
> @@ -45,9 +45,6 @@
> -- used for Ada_Task_Control_Block
> -- Task_ID
>
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Sm9obiBEYXZpZCBBbmdsaW4gd3JpdGVzOg0KPiA+IFdoaWxlIHByZXBhcmluZyBnY2MtMy4x
> IHBhY2thZ2VzIEkgbm90aWNlZCBtYW55IGVoLXJlbGF0ZWQgcmVncmVzc2lvbnMNCj4gPiBm
...
Matthias (and others),
base64 encoded email doesn't archive well:
http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/200
10 matches
Mail list logo
