On 30/05/14 08:53 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
With all the other build breakages in the past week, I've just
started seeing the first set of testresults from an auto-tester. It
looks like on a cross test using rhe5 / x86_64 with the version of
tcl8.4 I'm using I see the same errors that
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 May 2014 17:07, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> This patch broke the ability to run the libstdc++ testsuite on AIX.
>>
>> I now see the following errors:
>>
>> bad switch "-O": must be -all, -about, -indices, -inline, -expanded, -line,
>> -
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 24 May 2014 17:07, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> This patch broke the ability to run the libstdc++ testsuite on AIX.
>>
>> I now see the following errors:
>>
>> bad switch "-O": must be -all, -about, -indices, -inline, -expanded, -line,
>>
On 24 May 2014 17:07, David Edelsohn wrote:
> This patch broke the ability to run the libstdc++ testsuite on AIX.
>
> I now see the following errors:
>
> bad switch "-O": must be -all, -about, -indices, -inline, -expanded, -line,
> -lin
> estop, -lineanchor, -nocase, -start, or --
> while exec
This patch broke the ability to run the libstdc++ testsuite on AIX.
I now see the following errors:
bad switch "-O": must be -all, -about, -indices, -inline, -expanded, -line, -lin
estop, -lineanchor, -nocase, -start, or --
while executing
"regexp "\-O" $cxxflags"
(procedure "libstdc++_in
On 05/20/2014 02:11 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19/05/14 14:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 05/17/2014 04:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> It appears that this patch from last fall nev
On 19/05/14 14:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 05/17/2014 04:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/m
On 05/17/2014 04:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html
Can someone take a look? I'll commi
On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html
>>
>> Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf if it'
On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Then archives's inability...
Oof, not sure what my fingers were thinking there, I meant "Then the
archive's inability..." :)
On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html
>
> Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf if it's
> approved.
Libstdc++ patches need to go to the l
On May 16, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
> Can someone take a look?
Tentative Ok. Let’s let the library people have a chance to weigh in… I’d
say, let’s give them til Tuesday… should be enough time...
It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html
Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf if
it's approved.
-Sandra
13 matches
Mail list logo
