Hi,
I am trying to map an elf section to absolute address. Is there any way
that we can restrain the linker (ld) not to relocate a section and place
it at an absolute address.
I have tried placing the absolute address in the Sh_Addr and updating
the section name as SH_ABS. But it was of no use.
Hi,
I am trying to map an elf section to absolute address. Is there any way
that we can restrain the linker (ld) not to relocate a section and place
it at an absolute address.
I have tried placing the absolute address in the Sh_Addr and updating
the section name as SH_ABS. But it was of no use.
Hi,
I'm wondering whether the precompiled headers tests are ok for
mips-elf-gcc 3.4.4 on cygwin. When I run the testsuite for
mips-elf-gcc on cygwin using such command,
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="pch.exp"
The errors are like these following. It seems that there is no
common-1.h at all.
In addat
"Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Hi,
| >
| > One of the thing I've learnt over the week-end is that the option
| > code confusion
| >
| > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00326.html
| >
| > is partly caused by
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the thing I've learnt over the week-end is that the option
> code confusion
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00326.html
>
> is partly caused by a conflicting interests between -fconst-strings
> and -Wwrite-strin
Hi,
One of the thing I've learnt over the week-end is that the option
code confusion
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00326.html
is partly caused by a conflicting interests between -fconst-strings
and -Wwrite-strings. The former has been deprecated for a long time
now. I wo
Ryan Mansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > and that paper was debunked when it was presented at the ISO C++
| > committee in April 2003 at Oxford, UK. EDG is very willing to give
| > advice (based on their experience) to anyone interested in
| > implementing export in, say GCC. (They want to
> and that paper was debunked when it was presented at the ISO C++
> committee in April 2003 at Oxford, UK. EDG is very willing to give
> advice (based on their experience) to anyone interested in
> implementing export in, say GCC. (They want to see the best
> implementation of export for C++.)
>
Roland McGrath wrote:
>>* If GCC 4.1.0 does not support the new ABI, but GCC 4.1.1 does support
>>that, would it be possible to activate the support on the GLIBC 2.4 branch?
>
> This is not an option. When glibc 2.4 is released, the GLIBC_2.4 version
> set will never change again. Each platform
Ryan Mansfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Couldn't find anything on it in bugzilla, and I don't think it's worth
| > the effort. IIRC, Herb Sutter and another guy spent 6 months to get it
| > right in the EDG front end (and Herb originally wanted to throw export
| > for templates out of the s
> * If GCC 4.1.0 does not support the new ABI, but GCC 4.1.1 does support
> that, would it be possible to activate the support on the GLIBC 2.4 branch?
This is not an option. When glibc 2.4 is released, the GLIBC_2.4 version
set will never change again. Each platform will either change by the fi
> Andrew Pinski writes:
Andrew> Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was
really
Andrew> what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was
more
Andrew> important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was
really
Andrew> out of l
Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>it misses the point that many important resources in GCC are being used in
>>fixing and testing this new feature, instead of putting GCC in shape for the
>>release. So the release has been already delayed because of this, and will be
>>even more. That's something which alrea
>
> > Giovanni Bajo writes:
>
> Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
> policy is
> Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people
> involved in this
> Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the policy is
> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches?
No, that burden falls on the Release Manager. However, the SC has also
given me considerable latitude to exercise my judgement, which I did. I
> Couldn't find anything on it in bugzilla, and I don't think it's worth
> the effort. IIRC, Herb Sutter and another guy spent 6 months to get it
> right in the EDG front end (and Herb originally wanted to throw export
> for templates out of the standard alltogether).
>
> --
> Tarjei
The impleme
> Giovanni Bajo writes:
Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
policy is
Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people involved
in this
Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
objected.
Giova
On 2/3/06, Perry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:56:23PM +0100, andrzej wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am sorry if this is the wrong address for tihis question, but I
> >> couldn't find any other.
> >> In the manual pag
Gerald Pfeiffer wrote:
> Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
> with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
> 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
>
> It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our
> schedule
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've indicated before, I'm not pleased with this situation either.
> It was as much a surprise to me as anyone. There is no question that
> this change is not in keeping with our branch policy.
> [...]
> Also, at the time these changes were suggeste
20 matches
Mail list logo
