Hi all,
libiberty.a is built and installed by a number of packages, such as
binutils, gcc, gdb. When packaging for an OS, it's desirable to only
have libiberty.a installed by one package to avoid conflicts as to which
package 'owns' the file. Related to this are the following questions:
1) We c
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Matt Burgess
wrote:
>
> 1) We currently assume that binutils is 'upstream' for libiberty
> development, and should therefore 'own' the libiberty.a file. Is that
> assumption correct?
No. The master sources for libiberty are in the GCC repository.
> 2) The --dis
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 06:13 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Matt Burgess
> wrote:
> >
> > 1) We currently assume that binutils is 'upstream' for libiberty
> > development, and should therefore 'own' the libiberty.a file. Is that
> > assumption correct?
>
> No.
On 03/28/2013 06:09 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Hum… I can't help but wonder if there was supposed to be code that checks to
ensure dwarf is supported and the default before doing the entire test suite.
That's what I thought, yes. And we don't want to specify -gdwarf-2
explicitly, as now -gdwarf-4
Hi,
When compiling a shared library with "-mandroid -shared" the option
-Bsymbolic for linker is turned on by default. What was the reason
behind that default? Isn't using of -Bsymbolic somehow dangerous and
should be avoided..? (as e.g. is explained in the mail from Richard
Henderson http://gcc.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
My name is Bernhard Kiefmann and I'm writing my Master's thesis with the topic
"the suitability of the GNU C compiler used in safety-related areas". The first
problem with this is that I have to check if the compiler met the requirements
of the international standard
Snapshot gcc-4.6-20130329 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6-20130329/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
On 03/29/2013 01:35 PM, Kiefmann Bernhard wrote:
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
My name is Bernhard Kiefmann and I'm writing my Master's thesis with the topic "the
suitability of the GNU C compiler used in safety-related areas". The first problem
with this is that I have to check if the compiler m
Kiefmann Bernhard wrote:
My name is Bernhard Kiefmann and I'm writing my Master's thesis with the topic "the
suitability of the GNU C compiler used in safety-related areas". The first problem
with this is that I have to check if the compiler met the requirements of the
international standard I
Hi
I built a native power gcc, and used it to build 403.gcc in SPEC2006,
I got the following error when I specify -m32
In file included from rtl.c:188:0:
machmode.def:79:1: warning: left shift count >= width of type [enabled
by default]
DEF_MACHMODE (SImode, "SI", MODE_INT, BITS_PER_UNIT*4, 4, 4
On 3/29/2013 1:35 PM, Kiefmann Bernhard wrote:
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
My name is Bernhard Kiefmann and I'm writing my Master's thesis with
the topic "the suitability of the GNU C compiler used in
safety-related areas". The first problem with this is that I have to
check if the compiler met
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:58:50PM -0700, Carrot Wei wrote:
> /trunkbin/bin/gcc -c -o rtl.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -I. -O2
> -DSPEC_CPU_LP64 -m32rtl.c
You've given contradictory options. -m32 is *not* LP64.
> The left shift count is 32, it is actually less than the width of
> unsigned long
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 02:46:49PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 03/28/2013 06:09 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> >Hum… I can't help but wonder if there was supposed to be code that checks to
> >ensure dwarf is supported and the default before doing the entire test suite.
>
> That's what I thought, ye
13 matches
Mail list logo
