Re: gnu-gabi group

On 15 Feb 2016 17:17, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 15, 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > >> they need to allow google to execute javascript code on their > >> machine. > > > complaining that the web interf

Re: gnu-gabi group

On 15 Feb 2016 16:18, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > On 15/02/16 16:03, H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Feb 12, 2016, Pedro Alves wrote: > wonderful. I am not a big fan of google groups mailinglists, they seem > to make it hard to subscribe and

Re: getting bugzilla access for my account

On 02 Jan 2016 09:53, Marc Glisse wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > seeing as how i have commit access to the gcc tree, could i have > > my bugzilla privs extended as well ? atm i only have normal ones > > which means i only get to edit my own bugs

getting bugzilla access for my account

seeing as how i have commit access to the gcc tree, could i have my bugzilla privs extended as well ? atm i only have normal ones which means i only get to edit my own bugs ... can't dupe/update other ones people have filed. couldn't seem to find docs for how to request this, so spamming this lis

Re: PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes

On Saturday 25 August 2012 18:31:32 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 25 August 2012 11:58:08 H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> >

Re: PATCH: Don't set HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes

On Saturday 25 August 2012 11:58:08 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 8:31 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Setting HOST_LIB_PATH_bfd/HOST_LIB_PATH_opcodes causes: > > > > as: error while loading shared libraries: > > /builddir/build/BUILD/binutils/./opcodes/.libs/libopcodes-2.23.51.0.2

Re: gcc vs. glibc bootstrapping of libgcc_eh.a

On Friday 11 November 2011 16:27:18 Linas Vepstas wrote: > Thanks Mike, silly me, it seems that crosstool_ng is exactly what I need! > > Off-topic, but .. anyone have a clue about why my canadian-cross of > gcc is picking up its own internal limits.h, instead of glibc's > limits.h? Since gcc's lim

Re: gcc vs. glibc bootstrapping of libgcc_eh.a

comes up every few years http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-help/2011-08/msg00073.html -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:28, H.J. Lu wrote: > 1. The file name of an x32 binary package needs to be marked as x32. i would think this would be completely a package manager issue and out of scope for any ABI project such as x32 -mike

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Wednesday 12 October 2011 01:03:19 Michael LIAO wrote: > I am not asking a dedicated triplet for x32 to be used exclusively for > x32 package build. I am asking additional triplet with enough details > of execution environment (ABI definitely a necessary detail.) for > package which relies on tr

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote: > >> The current scheme documented on website > >> (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) us

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Monday, October 03, 2011 23:26:25 Michael LIAO wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > in terms of asm code, it's still possible to use ifdef's to handle cases > > where you truly need different code paths. > > Yeah, we could have 

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Monday, October 03, 2011 19:47:57 Michael LIAO wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote: > >> Most examples would be related to tools generating code. > >> > >> Suppose you

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote: please don't top post > Most examples would be related to tools generating code. > > Suppose you have a software package with several hard-coded fully > optimized assembly file for different targets. Your build system need > to know the cu

Re: new triplet for x32 psABI?

On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote: > As x32 psABI (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) is invented, do > we need a new triplet for system relies on triplet to figure out it's > targeted on x32 environment. The new triplet would look like > 'x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32' for

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Monday, March 21, 2011 01:35:35 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > in looking at the gcc files, i

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > in looking at the gcc files, it doesnt seem like there's any defines > > setup to declare x32 directly. instead, you'd have to do something > > l

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Thursday, March 17, 2011 01:21:16 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 7:57 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > ok, took long enough, but that answers most things. your usage of "x32-" > > prefixed binaries in the documentation seems to imply a lot more than the >

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 08:39:57 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:24 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > so we get back to my original e-mail: > >are you getting a unique host tuple for this ? or are you > > extending x86_64-linux-gnu ? so the only way of

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:51:37 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:30 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Wednesday, March 16, 2011 00:17:04 H.J. Lu wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote: > >> Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC: > >> > >> https://sites.go

Re: X32 psABI status update

On Saturday, March 05, 2011 14:08:04 H.J. Lu wrote: > Many x32 bugs are fixed in kernel, glibc, binutils and GCC: > > https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/ > > The major remaining issues are glibc/gcc testsuite failures, > kernel core dump and signal handler unwind. are you getting a unique host

Re: libiberty/.gitignore isn't in gcc tree

On Wednesday, January 05, 2011 11:44:58 Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 13:03:59 H.J. Lu wrote: > > libiberty/.gitignore was added to src. But it isn't in gcc tree. > > i dont have access to the gcc tree, so i can only post patches. if someone > wer

Re: libiberty/.gitignore isn't in gcc tree

On Tuesday, January 04, 2011 13:03:59 H.J. Lu wrote: > libiberty/.gitignore was added to src. But it isn't in gcc tree. i dont have access to the gcc tree, so i can only post patches. if someone were to grant me access, i obviously wouldnt have a problem making the commit. otherwise someone el

Re: RFC: Add zlib source to src CVS resposity

On Tuesday, November 02, 2010 09:22:24 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Nick Clifton writes: > > Right - this decision has been made. We are not going to include > > > > zlib the in the binutils sources. > > > > Thanks for suggesting the idea and working on the patch, but in the > > > > end it wa

Re: softfloat symbol visibility in libgcc.a/libgcc_s.so (fp-bit/dp-bit)

On Tuesday 10 March 2009 22:55:12 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:44:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > perhaps we need to extend the libgcc.m

Re: softfloat symbol visibility in libgcc.a/libgcc_s.so (fp-bit/dp-bit)

On Tuesday 10 March 2009 21:44:23 Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > perhaps we need to extend the libgcc.map function to allow people to > > insert $(FPBIT_FUNCS) and such into the map so libgcc_s.so exports these > > suckers ? > > E

softfloat symbol visibility in libgcc.a/libgcc_s.so (fp-bit/dp-bit)

if working with a softfloat toolchain, we end up with copies of softfloat symbols everywhere (from fp-bit.c and dp-bit.c). should these files really end up with symbols with hidden visibility ? seems like a waste to force copying of these symbols into binaries when libgcc_s.so itself already h

Re: Updating libtool in GCC and srctree

On Thursday 08 March 2007, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > You'll still need libtool.m4. > > Are you sure? According to > we > shouldn't need libtool.m4 in our package. i'm pretty sure those guidelines are for people making their final redis

Re: building glibc-2.4 for alpha fails with "macro requires $at register while noat in effect"

On Saturday 15 July 2006 05:12, Falk Hueffner wrote: > The cheap fix is to have gcc not emit .arch ev4. I was planning on > testing and submitting the following patch for this, but gcc didn't > bootstrap for a few days... that'd work for default/ev4 targets (no -mcpu or -mcpu=ev4), but poor old e

building glibc-2.4 for alpha fails with "macro requires $at register while noat in effect"

i was trying to cross-compile glibc-2.4 with gcc-4.1.1 when it failed on me while building ioperm.c ... poking around a bit, looks like the same issue discussed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00371.html however, this seems to have stalled ? the glibc build system appends -Wa,-mev6 to

issue with references to weak symbols in PIEs

before people dismiss this as a Gentoo-specific issue, the code fails with Redhat and Debian toolchains as well. tested gcc 3.4.5, 4.0.3, and a snap of 4.1.x dated 20060120. we were playing with arrays of pointers to weak functions in a utility program when we noticed the code started crashing

Re: RFH: libgcc_s.so being unnecessarily linked for mipsel-linux cross compiler...

On Thursday 28 July 2005 08:22 pm, James E Wilson wrote: > On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:58, Greg Schafer wrote: > > Glibc headers ARE provided -> inhibit_libc NOT defined -> optimal > > Glibc headers ARE NOT provided -> inhibit_libc IS defined -> suboptimal > > This is basically what I meant, but I d