Theodoros Foradis writes:
> The one issue I have observed is that newlib (and newlib-nano), is not
> provided as a substitute, when installed with a toolchain containing
> xgcc-6. I think that only the original newlib derivations are being
> built on hydra (the ones using xgcc-4.9 as their input
On 2016-10-16 13:01, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
Theodoros Foradis writes:
Hi,
I see that the original patches were applied in master. Did you check
if
cross-binutils with 2.25.1 source works for your use case?
Yes, I’m using the regular cross-binutils. Thanks for the
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Theodoros Foradis writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I see that the original patches were applied in master. Did you check if
>> cross-binutils with 2.25.1 source works for your use case?
>
> Yes, I’m using the regular cross-binutils. Thanks for the hint!
>
>> Would you like me to
Hi Ricardo,
diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-6-arm-none-eabi-multilib.patch
b/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-6-arm-none-eabi-multilib.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000..442f52b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/gnu/packages/patches/gcc-6-arm-none-eabi-multilib.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+From Anatol Pomoz
Theodoros Foradis writes:
> Hi,
>
> I see that the original patches were applied in master. Did you check if
> cross-binutils with 2.25.1 source works for your use case?
Yes, I’m using the regular cross-binutils. Thanks for the hint!
> Would you like me to reformat my patches for gcc-6.2.0, s
Hi,
I see that the original patches were applied in master. Did you check if
cross-binutils with 2.25.1 source works for your use case?
Would you like me to reformat my patches for gcc-6.2.0, so that they can
be applied on current master, or is there some other issue blocking that?
Regards,
--
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi Theodoros,
>>
>> Theodoros Foradis skribis:
>>
>>> The original patch series was working correctly and producing working
>>> binaries. Some
>>> flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of
>>> GCC 4.9,
>>> s
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi Theodoros,
>
> Theodoros Foradis skribis:
>
>> The original patch series was working correctly and producing working
>> binaries. Some
>> flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of
>> GCC 4.9,
>> so I added 6.2.0 as an extra option.
Hi Theodoros,
Theodoros Foradis skribis:
> The original patch series was working correctly and producing working
> binaries. Some
> flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of GCC
> 4.9,
> so I added 6.2.0 as an extra option. I have tested it to produce working
>
Hello Guix and Ricardo,
The original patch series was working correctly and producing working binaries.
Some
flags (that I had been using with 6.2.0) are missing from that version of GCC
4.9,
so I added 6.2.0 as an extra option. I have tested it to produce working
binaries.
Here are some modi
10 matches
Mail list logo