On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 10:48:40PM -0700, Justin Mattock wrote:
> hello,
> I just built a fresh clfs system using the tutorial.. right now Im
> able to boot and am able to login, the system seems to be running as
> it should except for when I try to install gmp and/or do a /sbin/lilo
> I see a mess
hello,
I just built a fresh clfs system using the tutorial.. right now Im
able to boot and am able to login, the system seems to be running as
it should except for when I try to install gmp and/or do a /sbin/lilo
I see a message appear on screen(below) then if I do any kind of
command(dmesg > dmesg
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:27 -0700, Erick Garske wrote:
>> There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i?
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html
>>
>> Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0?
>
> Ther
On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 12:27 -0700, Erick Garske wrote:
> There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html
>
> Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0?
There is no support in GCC for native iSeries (AKA AS/400).
Pete
There a location where I can download the binary of GCC for the IBM i?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/binaries.html
Are any of these compatible for the IBM i at V6R1M0?
Thanks,
Erick
Hi Richard,
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> The gdb version on openSUSE that ship with GCC 4.5 is perfectly fine
> (it's 7.1 based). No idea what the reporter is talking about (we don't ship
> insight IIRC).
You are remembering correctly. I was not clear enough. I u
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb writes:
>
> Bruce> That seems to work. There are one or two or three bugs then.
> Bruce> Either gdb needs to recognize an out of sync object code, or else
> Bruce> gcc needs to produce object code that forces gdb to o
> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb writes:
Bruce> That seems to work. There are one or two or three bugs then.
Bruce> Either gdb needs to recognize an out of sync object code, or else
Bruce> gcc needs to produce object code that forces gdb to object in a way
Bruce> more obvious than just deciding upon
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:19 AM, David Daney wrote:
>> That seems to work. There are one or two or three bugs then.
>> Either gdb needs to recognize an out of sync object code
>
> It cannot do this as it was released before GCC-4.5.
GDB and GCC communicate with each other with particular convent
On 08/06/2010 10:51 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
On 08/06/10 10:24, David Daney wrote:
On 08/06/2010 10:19 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
The problem seems to be that GDB thinks all the code belongs to a
single line of text. At first, it was a file of mine, so I presumed
I had done something strange and passe
On 08/06/10 10:24, David Daney wrote:
> On 08/06/2010 10:19 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
>> The problem seems to be that GDB thinks all the code belongs to a
>> single line of text. At first, it was a file of mine, so I presumed
>> I had done something strange and passed it off. I needed to do some
>> m
On 08/06/10 10:19, Bruce Korb wrote:
> The problem seems to be that GDB thinks all the code belongs to a
> single line of text. At first, it was a file of mine, so I presumed
> I had done something strange and passed it off. I needed to do some
> more debugging again and my "-g -O0" output still
On 08/06/2010 10:19 AM, Bruce Korb wrote:
The problem seems to be that GDB thinks all the code belongs to a
single line of text. At first, it was a file of mine, so I presumed
I had done something strange and passed it off. I needed to do some
more debugging again and my "-g -O0" output still s
* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:01:16PM CEST:
>My point was that in this case not only does ppl-0.11 require
> the existing soversion of cloog to be rebuilt but also all other
> previously built gcc releases that used it as well.
>Considering that the existing cloog-0.15.9 s
The problem seems to be that GDB thinks all the code belongs to a
single line of text. At first, it was a file of mine, so I presumed
I had done something strange and passed it off. I needed to do some
more debugging again and my "-g -O0" output still said all code
belonged to that one line. So,
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 06.08.2010 15:53, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Christophe LYON wrote:
> >
> > > From my brief investigation, I think that the problem is due to the fact
> > > that
> > > struct real_value uses the 'long' type for the 'sig' field,
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Ralf,
> > Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
> > unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
> > compilers are using -ldl to avoid
> > an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
> > and li
On 06.08.2010 15:53, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Christophe LYON wrote:
From my brief investigation, I think that the problem is due to the fact that
struct real_value uses the 'long' type for the 'sig' field, while the
computation of REAL_WIDTH relies on HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Ralf,
> Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
> unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
> compilers are using -ldl to avoid
> an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
> and libcloog. However this still leaves
> them open to a mismatch should they
> silent
Ralf,
Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
compilers are using -ldl to avoid
an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
and libcloog. However this still leaves
them open to a mismatch should they
silently uprgrade libcloog from a
version built against ppl-0.10.2 to
one
Hi Everyone,
I have an Ubuntu 9.04 system that I've installed gcc-4.5.1 on, using an in-tree
build of gmp, mpfr, mpc, and libelf.
lu...@node:~$ gcc-4.5.1 -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc-4.5.1
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/luked/local/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.5.1/lto-
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Christophe LYON wrote:
> From my brief investigation, I think that the problem is due to the fact that
> struct real_value uses the 'long' type for the 'sig' field, while the
> computation of REAL_WIDTH relies on HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT.
No, this is not a problem; it's fine to
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:39:49AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:31:31AM CEST:
> >I have been mulling over how to transition the
> > current gcc4x and cloog packages in fink to the new
> > ppl-0.11 release and believe we really need to have
> >
Hello,
I have noticed a build failure with GCC-4.5.0, when configuring with:
--build=x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
--host=arm-none-linux-gnueabi
--target=arm-none-linux-gnueabi
The build fails when compiling gcc/genconstants.c for the build machine:
In file included from ../../gcc/rtl.h:28,
Sebastian Pop wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 15:17, Sebastian Pop wrote:
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 15:07, Sebastian Pop wrote:
I'm delta reducing this.
Reduced it looks like this, and it seems like the bug is in the loop
distribution
for memset zero changes.
parameter(numlev=3,numob
25 matches
Mail list logo
