This patch is OK. Sorry for not looking at it earlier.
Thanks. Ian On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > ping 2 > > Am 15.05.2013 13:46, schrieb Matthias Klose: >> ping? >> >> regenerated the patch for the trunk, check with builds on arm-linux-gnueabihf >> and x86_64-linux-gnu >> >> Matthias >> >> * libgcc2.c: Don't include <limits.h>. >> >> Am 14.01.2013 22:54, schrieb Matthias Klose: >>> Am 04.01.2013 20:01, schrieb Wookey: >>>> I filed http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55743 (my first >>>> upstream gcc bug so be gentle :-) >>>> >>>> Details are there but the short version is that the limits.h inclusion >>>> in libgcc2.c is now a relic because the constants that it brings >>>> in are no longer used (since >>>> http://repo.or.cz/w/official-gcc.git/blobdiff/49f0f270673c4512c11f72a038b84c321ae5534a..7429c938827aa98bf3b02c4ac89510f4d28ef0b1:/gcc/libgcc2.c >>>> ) >>>> >>>> And this inclusion can break --without-headers bootstrapping (which is >>>> how I noticed it). >>>> >>>> Doko poked me to send the patch to this list for consideration for >>>> inclusion in trunk. >>> >>> The --without-headers build failures is unrelated. To catch this >>> mis-configuration I did propose a patch in >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-01/msg00743.html >>> >>> I think the patch itself is correct. However >>> >>> - please submit your patch against trunk, and state that you >>> did test the patch against trunk (of course, after testing it) >>> >>> - please provide a ChangeLog entry >>> >>> - thanks for your reference to the repo.or.cz repo, however it >>> would be good to reference a GCC commit. >>> looks like Alexandre Oliva did commit this without removing >>> the unneeded bits in r39365. >>> >>> Matthias >>> >>> >> >
