> On Nov 8, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Pinski, Andrew <andrew.pin...@cavium.com> wrote: > > I thought the decision Linaro/Arm was going to take over the development of > the ILP32? > What happened to that decision?
Hi Andrew, Where such a decision was discussed? -- Maxim Kuvyrkov www.linaro.org > > Thanks, > Andrew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yao Qi [mailto:yao...@linaro.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2017 9:50 AM > To: Pinski, Andrew <andrew.pin...@cavium.com> > Cc: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyr...@linaro.org>; Linaro Toolchain > <linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org>; Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs.n...@arm.com>; > Ellcey, Steve <steve.ell...@cavium.com> > Subject: Re: ILP32 toolchain status update > > On 8 November 2017 at 16:56, Pinski, Andrew <andrew.pin...@cavium.com> wrote: >> What env are you using? Are the glibc versions on the same between ILP32 >> and LP64? Because when that was true I did not have any issues with >> libthread_db. >> > > I didn't run gdb tests in ILP32 env, and I don't have such env. I got > gdb.sum from Steve on 18 Oct. You are on the cc as well. All my analysis is > based on that gdb.sum. > >> Anyways I did not see some of those failures listed below when using the >> correct setup. > > OK, can you send me a gdb.sum? > > -- > Yao Qi _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
