On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:09 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appro
Angelo Graziosi wrote on 11 July 2008 09:09:
> Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>>
>> OK.
>>
>> OK.
> If the patch is OK, may someone apply/commit it so we can test it also
> with the next 4.4 snapshot?
If nobody else does it first, I could help out with this at the weekend
(most likely sunday
Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<> wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
${gcc_dir}/configur
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:48 AM, Angelo Graziosi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
>>
>> This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
>> appropriate configure option.
>
>
> The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
>
> ${gcc_dir}/config
Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
This is OK, with a ChangeLog entry, if it passes bootstrap with the
appropriate configure option.
The following bootstraps rev. 137613, having configured as
${gcc_dir}/configure --prefix="${prefix_dir}" \
--exec-prefix="${eprefix_dir}" \
Angelo Graziosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- gcc-4.4-20080704.orig/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-06-29 06:39:16.0 +0200
> +++ gcc-4.4-20080704/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-07-05 12:00:20.90625 +0200
> @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@
> alloc_size = GGC_QUIRE_SIZE * G.pagesize;
>else
> alloc_s
On Tue, 8 Jul 2008, Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> --- gcc-4.4-20080704.orig/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-06-29 06:39:16.0 +0200
> +++ gcc-4.4-20080704/gcc/ggc-page.c 2008-07-05 12:00:20.90625 +0200
> @@ -799,7 +799,7 @@
> alloc_size = GGC_QUIRE_SIZE * G.pagesize;
> else
> alloc_s
Ian Lance Taylor ha scritto:
Angelo Graziosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It's valid, but it's not the right patch. The right patch is to use
XNEW and XCNEW from include/libiberty.h.
Gabriel Dos Reis in [1] wrote:
The idiom is to use XCNEWVAR(T) for xcalloc(1, sizeo
Angelo Graziosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> It's valid, but it's not the right patch. The right patch is to use
>> XNEW and XCNEW from include/libiberty.h.
>>
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis in [1] wrote:
>> The idiom is to use XCNEWVAR(T) for xcalloc(1, sizeof(T)),
>> XNEWVAR(
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
It's valid, but it's not the right patch. The right patch is to use
XNEW and XCNEW from include/libiberty.h.
Gabriel Dos Reis in [1] wrote:
> The idiom is to use XCNEWVAR(T) for xcalloc(1, sizeof(T)),
> XNEWVAR(T) for xmalloc(sizeof(T)),...
Gulp! I am a little confu
Angelo Graziosi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could this be valid?
It's valid, but it's not the right patch. The right patch is to use
XNEW and XCNEW from include/libiberty.h.
Ian
Dave Korn ha scritto:
Angelo Graziosi wrote on 05 July 2008 12:16:
For the sake of completeness I want to flag that the current snapshot
4.4-20080704 has new failures:
/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c -o ggc-page.o
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
/work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c: In function 'alloc_pa
Angelo Graziosi wrote on 05 July 2008 12:16:
> For the sake of completeness I want to flag that the current snapshot
> 4.4-20080704 has new failures:
> /work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c -o ggc-page.o
> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
> /work/gcc/gcc/ggc-page.c: In function 'alloc_page':
> /work/gcc/
For the sake of completeness I want to flag that the current snapshot
4.4-20080704 has new failures:
/work/build/./prev-gcc/xgcc -B/work/build/./prev-gcc/
-B/usr/local/gfortran/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/ -c -g -O2 -DIN_GCC -W -Wall
-Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wcast-qual
14 matches
Mail list logo
