>> In any case . .the gcc binary is missing in action .. did make install
>> fail in some weird way ?
>
> Possibly, but make should have failed also.
>
I re-ran the whole bootstrap process and this time was rewarded with
everything I wanted. I don't know what the issue was earlier. Oh well.
Denn
> In any case . .the gcc binary is missing in action .. did make install
> fail in some weird way ?
Possibly, but make should have failed also.
Ben
Hi Diego, et al,
As Sebastian mentioned INRIA finally signed copyright transfer form
for FSF last year so our patches can be easily integrated into GCC.
During this week, I will check the current GCC plugins branch and will send you
more
info about the current version of Interactive Compilation
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > This means disabling snapshots and nightly DATESTAMP updates for the
> > branch, closing bugs that are open as 4.2 regressions but fixed in
> > 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, and removing "4.2/" from the summaries of 4.2
> > regression bugs that remain open as als
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> The current system for managing bugzilla priorities has a major problem,
> in that it does not identify bugs that reasonably cannot be fixed before
> the release.
>
> The current set of priorities is in practice like this:
>
> - P1: most wrong
Jean Christophe Beyler wrote:
> Ok, thanks for all this information and if you can dig that up it
> would be nice too. I'll start looking at that patch and PR33699 to
> see if I can adapt them to my needs.
Here it is.
Paolo
/* Copy propagation on RTL for GNU compiler.
Copyright (C) 2006 Free
