On Fri, 1 May 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> > config/h8300/h8300.c:#include "c-pragma.h"
> > config/i386/i386.c:#include "c-common.h"
> > config/sh/sh.c:#include "c-pragma.h"
> > config/spu/spu.c:#include "c-common.h"
>
> These I will need to check via a cross compiler. Andrew P., maybe you
> ca
Noticed that some symbols introduced for the exception propagation support are
missing in libstdc++.so.6 on arm-linux-gnueabi, hppa-linux-gnu and
sparc-linux-gnu (no results for mips*-linux yet). The libstdc++ configure check
GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS fails, because three of the five __sync_*
Il giorno 02/mag/09, alle ore 13:05, Matthias Klose
ha scritto:
Noticed that some symbols introduced for the exception propagation
support are
missing in libstdc++.so.6 on arm-linux-gnueabi, hppa-linux-gnu and
sparc-linux-gnu (no results for mips*-linux yet). The libstdc++
configure ch
Hi,
libgcc.a has all of the __sync_* functions defined, and the
configure (link)
tests in libgomp and libgfortran do succeed. Unsure what I'm doing
wrong with
the libstdc++ configury.
I don't think you are doing anything wrong, it's just that in libstdc+
+ we are moving away from doing li
The top level configury suggests that you can simply drop gmp, ppl, etc
into the top level source dir and they will get configured and used.
Does this really work?
At the very least, I think ppl requires that gmp be configured with
--enable-cxx, like so:
Index: Makefile.def
==
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I don't think you are doing anything wrong, it's just that in libstdc++ we are
> moving away from doing link tests. In my understanding, that would be nice
> also for the other libraries but of course leads yo weaker tests. Now, in
> order to make progres
Hi,
and, first, thanks for the various clarifications.
> Linux targets *don't* necessarily have the __sync_* functions. For
> example, they are not available on ColdFire (even with Maxim's TLS patch
> which I imagine will be updated and reposted in due course now we are in
> Stage 1), since at
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> I'm not sure if we already discussed a bit the following: would it make
> sense to change those tests along the lines of GCC_TRY_COMPILE_OR_LINK?
> I mean, if gcc_no_link is yes, then we just do what we currently do,
> we look at the .s output, otherwis
Hi,
>> I'm not sure if we already discussed a bit the following: would it make
>> sense to change those tests along the lines of GCC_TRY_COMPILE_OR_LINK?
>> I mean, if gcc_no_link is yes, then we just do what we currently do,
>> we look at the .s output, otherwise we do a test, completely analogo
Steven Bosscher wrote:
[snip]
> config/sh/sh.c:#include "c-pragma.h"
FYI, I've confirmed that there are no problems without
this line for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu.
Regards,
kaz
10 matches
Mail list logo
