On 27/09/13 17:08, Steve Ellcey wrote:
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:47 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
I'm in two minds about whether further sticky tape of this form is the
right approach or whether the original patch should be reverted until a
proper fix that does not regress the tree can be found
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:47 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> I'm in two minds about whether further sticky tape of this form is the
> right approach or whether the original patch should be reverted until a
> proper fix that does not regress the tree can be found.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> 2013-09-26
On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:47 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> I'm in two minds about whether further sticky tape of this form is the
> right approach or whether the original patch should be reverted until a
> proper fix that does not regress the tree can be found.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> 2013-09-26
This patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00038.html
... breaks libgfortran configure against newlib.
The solution implemented hard wires an assumption in
libgfortran/configure.ac that newlib provides strtold(). This
assumption is not correct, newlib only provides an implementatio
