* Iain Sandoe [2020-01-31 20:18:58 +]:
> Hello Andrew,
>
> Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
> > Here's a cleaned up version of the previous patch I posted. If Iain
> > reports this fixes the regressions he saw then I will push this.
>
> I applied this to r10-6364 and tested on a bunch of Darwin p
Hello Andrew,
Andrew Burgess wrote:
Here's a cleaned up version of the previous patch I posted. If Iain
reports this fixes the regressions he saw then I will push this.
I applied this to r10-6364 and tested on a bunch of Darwin platforms.
AFAICT, the configuration now reports consistent va
Here's a cleaned up version of the previous patch I posted. If Iain
reports this fixes the regressions he saw then I will push this.
All feedback welcome.
Thanks,
Andrew
---
>From 876996580d64d31407357787fc5df7bd5699b2c0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Andrew Burgess
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 12:
* Iain Sandoe [2020-01-30 15:21:08 +]:
> >> Can you clarify why there’s no need to match the configury changes in
> >> libcpp
> >> / gcc / libstdc++ ?
> >
> > This is the same issue that Tobias pointed out, and was a result of me
> > incorrectly trying to regenerate the configure files.
>
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Iain Sandoe [2020-01-28 10:34:52 +]:
>> * Before the patch, libcpp and gcc configury finds this and they agree on
>> the availability of ICONV (#define HAVE_ICONV 1).
>>
>> * After the patch libcpp no longer thinks iconv is available, but gcc
>> cont
* Iain Sandoe [2020-01-28 10:34:52 +]:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Andrew Burgess wrote:
>
> > * Jeff Law [2020-01-22 13:52:27 -0700]:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 15:39 +, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > > > The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
> > > > link against
Hi Andrew,
I think when committing this patch, you missed to regenerate gcc/configure.
At least with --enable-maintainer-mode, I see the attached changes – and
I think they come from your patch. (Line numbers might be off as I
edited out my changes.) — The other changes are due to
https://gcc
On 22/01/20 15:39 +, Andrew Burgess wrote:
The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
link against static libraries on a target where dynamic libraries are
the default library type (for example GNU/Linux).
Further, my motivation is really for linking libraries into
Hi Andrew,
Andrew Burgess wrote:
* Jeff Law [2020-01-22 13:52:27 -0700]:
On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 15:39 +, Andrew Burgess wrote:
The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
link against static libraries on a target where dynamic libraries are
the default library t
* Jeff Law [2020-01-22 13:52:27 -0700]:
> On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 15:39 +, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> > The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
> > link against static libraries on a target where dynamic libraries are
> > the default library type (for example GNU/Linux
On Wed, 2020-01-22 at 15:39 +, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
> link against static libraries on a target where dynamic libraries are
> the default library type (for example GNU/Linux).
>
> Further, my motivation is really for linki
The motivation behind this change is to make it easier for a user to
link against static libraries on a target where dynamic libraries are
the default library type (for example GNU/Linux).
Further, my motivation is really for linking libraries into GDB,
however, the binutils-gdb/config/ directory
12 matches
Mail list logo
