On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I hope we can merge this soon.
Seconded.
-- Gaby
On 07/18/2013 04:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> There may be more missing dependencies. Please try out this branch if
> you would. You can report bugs to me, just send the build log.
I've done a couple of builds, and had a browse through the patches on the
branch. It's looking pretty good to me. I
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Ian> So you should be good to go for Go.
Thanks. I confirmed it works here. I've merged this and pushed the
needed go/Make-lang.in change to my branch and built with a large -j on
gcc110 with success.
Tom
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
> ... which causes build failures for go-backend.c (uses rtl.h) and
> go-lang.c (uses except.h), since with this defined, certain headers are
> prohibited.
>
>
> A short term solution is to keep Go using explicit dependencies.
>
> For a long te
Tom> There may be more missing dependencies. Please try out this branch if
Tom> you would. You can report bugs to me, just send the build log.
I tried -j33 on a bigger machine and found a problem with Go.
The dependency patch uses the language Makefile conventions to add some
order-only depende
> "Diego" == Diego Novillo writes:
Diego> Have you any plans for other build system work?
Nope, no other plans.
This was just an unfinished item from long ago that Cauldron inspired me
to try to complete.
Tom
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Today I started resurrecting my old automatic dependency patch.
Thanks Tom! I'd hug you if you weren't so ugly ;)
> There may be more missing dependencies. Please try out this branch if
> you would. You can report bugs to me, just send the
Today I started resurrecting my old automatic dependency patch.
I decided, this time, to take a more incremental approach. Thanks to
git, I made a patch series, rather than one monster patch. Now we can
easily test various parts of the change to more easily notice if, or
when, we trip across the
