On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58:24PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:
> > We don't have faster hardware.
> > We think of a too slow thing in a question
>
> A test of gcc of sh4 takes time.
> When there is not a test, a package is done in about two days.
>
> How does sh4 become targeted for the r
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
timescale.
then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least sh4 has a
workable, accessible deve
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other d
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
> I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
> GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
> powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
Thanks
Konstantinos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
yes, forgot a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis
wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
>> GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
>> powerpc.
>
> Could you include armhf in the list as w
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 16:41:23 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
> >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
> >timescale.
>
> then please drop mips and mip
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap compil
On 04/26/2011 06:01 PM, Petr Salinger wrote:
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't b
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6.
Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap
compiler works around the build failure?
As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*,
wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap compile
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Apr 21 05:08:12 UTC 2011 (revision 172810)
Target: mipsel-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-11)
Native configuration is mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/packed1.C (test for excess errors)
UNRESOLVED: attri
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
> >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
> >timescale.
>
> then please drop mips and mi
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
> >>next
> >>two weeks before more transitions
Matthias Klose dixit:
> At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like to avoid
> switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of GCC 4.5 to reduce
> maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even before the multiarch changes
Porters side, too. I’m okay with kee
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > I'll make GCC 4.6 the
> > default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
> > least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc.
>
> If you do the switch
Kurt Roeckx, le Tue 26 Apr 2011 21:28:57 +0200, a écrit :
> Is there a reason not to switch the remaining (release) arches
> (ia64, kfreebsd-*, sparc, s390)? Maybe hurd-i386 too?
There's no real reason to defer hurd-i386, as it's basically like i386,
and the key packages (glibc/hurd/gnumach) alre
On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok
it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable
times
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386 and p
18 matches
Mail list logo
