On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 17:32 +, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Exactly, hard wiring the newlib interface into the configury of other
> libraries is questionable, but the patch applied to libgfortran goes
> beyond hard wiring details of the interface, it hard wires incorrect
> details of the interfac
On 24 October 2013 17:47, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I am not sure how we would fix the build issue to allow us to not
> hardcode the newlib configure details into the libgfortran configure
> script. The linker script that needs to be used to get a good link is
> different depending on what options o
On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 15:53 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Can your build be fixed allowing us to back out:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2013-06/msg00038.html
>
> ?
>
> I'd really like to make some progress on this, while my proposed patch
> does resolve the regression introduce
On 15 October 2013 22:35, Mike Stump wrote:
> Would be nice for a build/config person to weigh in or to upgrade and make
> bullet proof the system against such failures. My take, by default, the
> compile line should do something useful, and that should be enough for
> autoconf style tests to
On Oct 15, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Marcus Shawcroft wrote:>> 2013-10-01 Marcus Shawcroft
>
> >>
> >> * configure.ac (AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE): Add for exit() then make
> >> existing AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE dependent on outcome.
> >
> > Ping^2
>
> For configure patche
Marcus Shawcroft wrote:>> 2013-10-01 Marcus Shawcroft
>>
>> * configure.ac (AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE): Add for exit() then make
>> existing AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE dependent on outcome.
>
> Ping^2
For configure patches, I am never quite sure whether they should be
reviewed by a build
On 15/10/13 12:31, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> On 1 October 2013 12:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>> On 30/09/13 13:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>>
Well, I thought this patch would work for me, but it does not. It looks
like gcc_no_link is set to 'no' on my target because, technically, I can
On 1 October 2013 12:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> On 30/09/13 13:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>
>>> Well, I thought this patch would work for me, but it does not. It looks
>>> like gcc_no_link is set to 'no' on my target because, technically, I can
>>> link even if I don't use a linker script. I
On 1 October 2013 12:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> Patch attached.
>
> /Marcus
>
> 2013-10-01 Marcus Shawcroft
>
> * configure.ac (AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE): Add for exit() then make
> existing AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE dependent on outcome.
Ping.
On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 12:40 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
> On 30/09/13 13:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>
> >> Well, I thought this patch would work for me, but it does not. It looks
> >> like gcc_no_link is set to 'no' on my target because, technically, I can
> >> link even if I don't use a link
On 30/09/13 13:40, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
Well, I thought this patch would work for me, but it does not. It looks
like gcc_no_link is set to 'no' on my target because, technically, I can
link even if I don't use a linker script. I just can't find any
functions.
In which case gating on gcc
11 matches
Mail list logo
