https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Javier Serrano Polo
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |WONTFIX
--- Comment #15 from Javi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #14 from Javier Serrano Polo
---
(In reply to Adam Conrad from comment #13)
> Please stop speaking as if you speak for the Debian toolchain maintainers,
> or Debian as a whole. You don't.
I do not represent Debian, but I state fact
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #13 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #12)
>
> Multiarch interpreter names are officially supported in Debian.
No. No they're not. I don't think "officially" means what you think it means.
I've as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #12 from Javier Serrano Polo
---
Created attachment 43357
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=43357&action=edit
Initial support for multiarch interpreters
(In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #11)
> If you intend t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #10)
> This report is about the patch that will be submitted with multiarch names.
If you intend to send a patch, you can send it directly to
gcc-patc...@gcc.gnu.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #10 from Javier Serrano Polo
---
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #9)
> Not a bug. The appropriate time to raise such an issue is if in future
> there is otherwise consensus to have a major libc ABI break and move to
> libc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Javier Serrano Polo
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|IN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #7 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #6)
>
> > the discussion about names is probably more appropriate on the libc side
>
> Adam, do you agree?
I agree with this statement, sure. But I don't agree
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #6 from Javier Serrano Polo ---
> As long as the new behavior is optional (not the default), the patch stands a
> chance of being accepted.
Thank you. I will change the status of the report if you do not mind.
> the discussion about
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #5 from Adam Conrad ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #1)
> Adam, if you had to come up with multiarch interpreter names for traditional
> architectures, which would be the proper place to discuss?
As Andrew says, the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Javier Serrano Polo from comment #3)
> Upstream wants to make multiarch harder; the patch will not be posted here.
As long as the new behavior is optional (not the default), the patch stands a
cha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
--- Comment #3 from Javier Serrano Polo ---
Upstream wants to make multiarch harder; the patch will not be posted here.
Nevertheless, Adam, please answer to my previous question.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84173
Javier Serrano Polo
changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||adconrad at 0c3 dot net
--- Comme
15 matches
Mail list logo
