Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Thomas Schwinge writes: > No, you did not, but I had said: »not obvious [...] where the > gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using [target_cpu_default]«. Why do you think this directory is called gcc-interface??? Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:09:59 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab > > wrote: > >> Thomas Schwinge writes: > >> > >> > It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch > >> > reviewers, as it

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Thomas Schwinge writes: > Hi! > > On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab > wrote: >> Thomas Schwinge writes: >> >> > It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch >> > reviewers, as it seems) where the gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using >> > this varia

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 11:30:06 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: > > > It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch > > reviewers, as it seems) where the gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using > > this variable. Is there a way for this to be ma

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Thomas Schwinge writes: > It is not obvious to me (and neither was to Olivier as well as the patch > reviewers, as it seems) where the gcc/ada/gcc-interface/ code is using > this variable. Is there a way for this to be made more explicit, so in > the future it won't get removed as unused, again?

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Sun, 16 Mar 2014 09:32:33 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Thomas Schwinge writes: was the final version of the patch, after Olivier had taken it over from me. > > --- gcc/ada/gcc-i

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Thomas Schwinge writes: > diff --git gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in > index eeb8c7f..c07722b 100644 > --- gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in > +++ gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in > @@ -151,12 +151,15 @@ GCC_CFLAGS = $(INTERNAL_CFLAGS) $(T_CFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) >

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

On Jun 3, 2013, at 22:59 , Olivier Hainque wrote: >> I suggest another approach: if there are significant differences between >> the run-time systems, they ought to be preserved in the canonical target >> names. So, adjust config.sub so that it preserve them, and then we can >> decide based on t

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

On Jun 2, 2013, at 21:18 , Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> - Use target_alias explicitly just at the points where >> we know that we need to depart from the canonical name > > I suggest another approach: if there are significant differences between > the run-time systems, they ought to be preserved

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

On May 31, 2013, Olivier Hainque wrote: > - revert to our former computations, based on target and >not target_alias. Revert the subsequent adjustments as >well. *nod* > - Use target_alias explicitly just at the points where >we know that we need to depart from the canonical name

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> So, your case works because the manu/osys parsing wrongly detects/assigns > a manufacturer »linux« and an operating system androideabi. Then, the > following case fails, which is expected to yield identical results, with > "complete triplets" -- which I took for granted in my reasoning about the

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Fri, 31 May 2013 21:54:55 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > In my reading, the code supported both these before your recent change, > > and now supports neither, as I reported this morning. > > Did you test it? I didn't; now I have, and... > > With which configurations exactly have you te

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> In my reading, the code supported both these before your recent change, > and now supports neither, as I reported this morning. Did you test it? > With which configurations exactly have you tested your change? arm-linux-androideabi -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

On May 30, 2013, at 23:08 , Olivier Hainque wrote: > The idea of the "target->target_alias" change in gcc-interface/Makefile.in > for Ada was to let us still distinguish for the purpose of the Ada RTSes in > particular. > > This happens to be significant in a limited amount of cases only. A v

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Fri, 31 May 2013 13:14:39 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Do you mean arm-linux-androideabi, or arm-none-linux-androideabi? > > Thr former, but I guess that we want to support the latter as well. In my reading, the code supported both these before your recent change, and now supports nei

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> Do you mean arm-linux-androideabi, or arm-none-linux-androideabi? Thr former, but I guess that we want to support the latter as well. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Il 31/05/2013 10:03, Eric Botcazou ha scritto: >> I don't understand this change. This used to match configurations >> arm*-[vendor]-linux-androideabi; now it only matches >> arm*-[vendor]-androideabi, which isn't in use (for a Android system is >> always based on the Linux kernel, in my understan

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> I don't understand this change. This used to match configurations > arm*-[vendor]-linux-androideabi; now it only matches > arm*-[vendor]-androideabi, which isn't in use (for a Android system is > always based on the Linux kernel, in my understanding). This is meant to match arm-linux-androideab

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Thu, 30 May 2013 09:21:12 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > However, it seems that the first androideabi snippet was dead code. > > Can you delete it in a follow-up? > > No, it's not dead code, just broken at the moment, now fixed by: > > > 2013-05-30 Eric Botcazou > > * gcc-int

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

On May 30, 2013, at 15:44 , Arnaud Charlet wrote: > In other words, this change will impact basically all targets, so needs > either much more testing, or more review, which is on going. Part of the issue comes from the need to support some targets with non-canonical names (in the configure --

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> >>> The target_cpu_canonical substitution has been added in commit > >>> 369e542b3ad1c0acfa9bfaeb72b338d8db5ba2ef (2009-02-27, r144463, > >>> schwab) but unused ever since, thus removed. > >>> > >>> I'll now be testing for x86 GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd; further > >>> testing appreciated. > > For th

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Il 30/05/2013 09:33, Eric Botcazou ha scritto: >> I don't think this fixes it. The problem is that the second eabi >> > conditional overrides the first (the one for Android). > Then let's fix the second eabi or swap them, but the first one must stay. Yes, got it. Swapping them looks like the rig

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> I don't think this fixes it. The problem is that the second eabi > conditional overrides the first (the one for Android). Then let's fix the second eabi or swap them, but the first one must stay. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Il 30/05/2013 09:21, Eric Botcazou ha scritto: >> However, it seems that the first androideabi snippet was dead code. >> Can you delete it in a follow-up? > > No, it's not dead code, just broken at the moment, now fixed by: > > > 2013-05-30 Eric Botcazou > > * gcc-interface/Makefile.in

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 29/05/2013 23:36, Thomas Schwinge ha scritto: > Hi! > > On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:21:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini > wrote: >> Il 29/05/2013 12:50, Thomas Schwinge ha scritto: > How about we use something like the following [...] patch? > In essenc

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

> However, it seems that the first androideabi snippet was dead code. > Can you delete it in a follow-up? No, it's not dead code, just broken at the moment, now fixed by: 2013-05-30 Eric Botcazou * gcc-interface/Makefile.in (arm% androideabi): Robustify. -- Eric BotcazouIndex: gcc

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:21:38 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 29/05/2013 12:50, Thomas Schwinge ha scritto: > >>> How about we use something like the following [...] patch? In > >>> essence, replace the manual parsing in > >>> gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in by using the values the > >>>

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Il 29/05/2013 12:50, Thomas Schwinge ha scritto: >>> How about we use something like the following [...] patch? In >>> essence, replace the manual parsing in >>> gcc/ada/gcc-interface/Makefile.in by using the values the >>> configure script already c

Re: [ada, build] host/target configuration

Hi! On Tue, 28 May 2013 09:28:28 +0200, I wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:27:09 +0200, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > As described in [PR ada/57188], amd64-pc-solaris2.1[01] Ada bootstrap was > > failing > > for some time. It has turned out that this patch is the culprit: > > > > 2013-04-23 Eric B

[ada, build] host/target configuration (was: Restore Solaris/amd64 Ada bootstrap (PR ada/57188))

Hi! On Wed, 08 May 2013 11:27:09 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote: > As described in the PR, amd64-pc-solaris2.1[01] Ada bootstrap was failing > for some time. It has turned out that this patch is the culprit: > > 2013-04-23 Eric Botcazou > Pascal Obry > > * gcc-interface/M