Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

On 8/6/2010 1:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:26:30AM CEST: So, you could easily create a test that uses the native system compiler to "fake" a cross-toolchain "sysroot" test. >> Dunno. It's possible that all you really need from lib are

Support new platform "Andestech" Platform

Hi All Patches are us following -- 轉寄的郵件 -- 寄件者： 日期： 2009年7月1日下午3:59 主旨： Andes application porting guide *Hi, all:* * * Share you with the experiences in open source applications porting for Andes platform. * * ** Environment settings for Andes Toolchain* # Andes toolc

Re: Support new platform "Andestech" Platform

On 08/06/2010 06:53 AM, Thomas YS Liu wrote: > *1. Modify config.sub* > *1.1 Modify config.sub file* for individual package > > This step helps the autoconf tool > recognizing the Andes > architecture and machine type. You can follow the diff > file below to

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: OTOH, since I hope to have more larger changes in the future, I'm not sure we really want another major number bump already. That's only a minor bump, according to major.minor.micro: major bump => substantial rewrite minor bump => new features, new

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

* Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:47:59PM CEST: > On 8/6/2010 1:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Wrt. lib and lib32, lib64, can we find out all files GCC needs by asking > > it several -print-* questions? Plus maybe optimistically searching for > > libc and ld*.so? > > Well, if t

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

Hi Bob, On 6 Aug 2010, at 22:30, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >>> >>> OTOH, since I hope to have more larger changes in the future, I'm not >>> sure we really want another major number bump already. >> >> That's only a minor bump, according to major.minor.m

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

Hello, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 08:53:15PM CEST: > Another viable compromise might be to call the next release > 2.3.0? Maybe it's early enough to finalize a decision on this when we know a bit better which patches are in, and which features can be advertised. There is als

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

On Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: Nonetheless I still think that users should have some confidence that releases get more stable as micro increases. Rolling a ton of new code into a micro bump violates that idea. True. Incrementing minor suggests production of a branch and that the

Fix ltdl-libdir test for C++ compilers.

Pushed as obvious to let 'configure CC=g++' pass the testsuite again. Cheers, Ralf Fix ltdl-libdir test for C++ compilers. * tests/ltdl-libdir.at (libdir of installed modules): Declare module function as extern "C". diff --git a/tests/ltdl-libdir.at b/tests/ltdl-libdir.at index

Fix AC_NO_EXECUTABLES test failure on AIX. (was: libtool-2.2.8 on AIX 6.1)

> On 02.08.2010 20:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Rainer Tammer wrote on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:40:13PM CEST: > >> I just have tested libtool 2.2.8 on AIX 6.1. > >> 95: AC_NO_EXECUTABLES FAILED > >> (no-executables.at:76) > > This is new to me, and an actual (minor

versioning test on AIX (was: libtool-2.2.8 on AIX 6.1)

* Rainer Tammer wrote on Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 09:40:23AM CEST: > On 02.08.2010 20:40, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Rainer Tammer wrote on Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 05:40:13PM CEST: > >> 56: versioning FAILED > >> (versioning.at:169) > > This testsuite bug should (hop

revert unwanted enabling of libtool tracing (was: libtool-2.2.11a on AIX 5.3 current git master / followup on the old test suite and failures in the new testsuit)

Rainer, I'm going through things in some random order, and it will take me at least a little while to get through them all. * Rainer Tammer wrote on Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:25:14AM CEST: > 38. link-order2.at:46: testing Link order of deplibs ... > libtool: compile: cc_r -qlanglvl=extc89 -g -c a0.