On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 07:06 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Eric Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >>If someone wishes to submit a patch for that bug for 4.0 branch, I expect
> >>it could be considered for 4.0.2 but might be too risky for 4.0.1 now.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Like so? Tested by building outside th
Eric Christopher wrote:
If someone wishes to submit a patch for that bug for 4.0 branch, I expect
it could be considered for 4.0.2 but might be too risky for 4.0.1 now.
Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and attempting
to build in the source directory. Did we want som
> I also changed the error message to read:
>
> "... is not supported in this release"
>
> Which might work and we can, of course, remove the error message if that
> ever changes :)
>
> OK?
I have no objections, not that I'm the release manager.
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 15:31 -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 18:24 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > > Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> > > attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> > > like this for mainline too?
> >
> > We
On Tue, 2005-06-21 at 18:24 -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> > attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> > like this for mainline too?
>
> We've historically put a lot of effort into making "./configure" work,
>
> Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and
> attempting to build in the source directory. Did we want something
> like this for mainline too?
We've historically put a lot of effort into making "./configure" work,
so I'd hate to snub anyone willing to work on it. Perhaps an "a
>
> If someone wishes to submit a patch for that bug for 4.0 branch, I expect
> it could be considered for 4.0.2 but might be too risky for 4.0.1 now.
>
Like so? Tested by building outside the source directory and attempting
to build in the source directory. Did we want something like this for
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Mark Williams (MWP) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Yes i did... i always do and have never had a problem doing so before.
> > > I will try building in a different directory though and report back.
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
> >
> > To be honest I'm always su
Mark Williams (MWP) wrote:
> Thought i should report this...
>
> Building 4.0.1 RC2, i get this error:
>
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/intl'
Looks like you're trying to build GCC in the source
folder itself - this is not supported (yet).
Try creating a
>
> >
> > Yes i did... i always do and have never had a problem doing so before.
> > I will try building in a different directory though and report back.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
>
> To be honest I'm always surprised when it works at all.
Ok, that fixed it, thanks.
Maybe
>
> Yes i did... i always do and have never had a problem doing so before.
> I will try building in a different directory though and report back.
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html
To be honest I'm always surprised when it works at all.
-eric
>On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 15:02 +0930, Mark Williams (MWP) wrote:
>> Thought i should report this...
>>
>> Building 4.0.1 RC2, i get this error:
>>
>> make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/intl'
>> make[1]: Entering directory
>> `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 15:02 +0930, Mark Williams (MWP) wrote:
> Thought i should report this...
>
> Building 4.0.1 RC2, i get this error:
>
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/intl'
> make[1]: Entering directory
> `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/buil
Thought i should report this...
Building 4.0.1 RC2, i get this error:
make[1]: Leaving directory `/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/intl'
make[1]: Entering directory
`/data/backup/linux/gcc/gcc-4.0.1-20050616/build-i686-pc-linux-gnu/libiberty'
make[1]: *** No rule to make target `../inclu
14 matches
Mail list logo
