>> Does the group / team have an AIX 6.1 build machine to build the trunk on?
>> Or am I the first to person walk into this?
>
> I'm still curious in the question above
And I'm still curious :-)
I opened this bug report:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
I finally got trunk to
On 28 October 2012 13:39, Perry Smith wrote:
> I opened this bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55105
>> Does the group / team have an AIX 6.1 build machine to build the trunk on?
>> Or am I the first to person walk into this?
>
> I'm still curious in the question above
And I'm still curious :-)
I opened this bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/post_bug.cgi
I finally got trunk to build.
On Oct 25, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/c
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:31 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>> For trunk, yes, see the top entry of http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/changes.html
>>
>> That isn't the case for 4.5.2, so as I sai
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on
On 25 October 2012 14:16, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same
On Oct 25, 2012, at 3:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>>
>> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
>> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
>> feature. Thus, something has c
On Oct 24, 2012, at 8:12 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> Just to satisfy my curiosity, I will build 4.5.2 on the same machine I'm now
> using to verify what I just said.
Yes. the gcc-4.5.2 tarball builds just fine on the same host using roughly the
same configuration options. I've added only --disa
On 25 October 2012 02:12, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> This also changes a previous statement I made: while I did build 4.5.2 on a
> different level of AIX, it was a 6.1 level and has the same LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> feature. Thus, something has changed in the build process of gcc to include
> LD_LIBRARY_P
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I
>>> was calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>>
>> Just
On Oct 24, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
>> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
>> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
>
> Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
Thanks.
On 24 October 2012 15:10, Perry Smith wrote:
> I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
> calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Just "make" is correct, and has been for many years now.
I thought I found a pilot error last night but it made no difference. I was
calling "make" and not "make bootstrap".
Part of my current difficulty is I do "make bootstrap" (on a 100% clean
directory after configure) and it does as I reported before.
If I then just do "make bootstrap" a second
On 10/22/2012 06:03 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>
>> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
>> a
On Oct 22, 2012, at 7:58 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
>
>> On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>>
>>> I've recreated t
On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:55 AM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote:
> On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
>> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>>
>> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>
> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
> and executes with a 0 status.
>
> The clue (that I can'
On 10/22/2012 03:49 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
> In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
> https://gist.github.com/3931504
>
> I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine
> and executes with a 0 status.
>
> The clue (that I can't figu
In stage 3, libatomic's configure fails. The config.log file is here:
https://gist.github.com/3931504
I've recreated the conftest.c and ran the same command. The output is fine and
executes with a 0 status.
The clue (that I can't figure out) is cc1 is a 32 bit program but it tried to
load th
20 matches
Mail list logo
