On Saturday 11 October 2008 00:27:06, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On HEAD, when undoing this change (and additionally commenting out the
> two ``stop_soon = X'' lines in that file), things are fine again.
>
> As most of GDB's internals are a big black box to me, I need help here.
> :-)
>
Eh, I did
Hello!
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 12:55:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> A Thursday 09 October 2008 10:34:24, Thomas Schwinge escreveu:
> > Some of the changes that have been installed between gdb_6_8-branch and
> > HEAD cause GDB to no longer function properly on GNU/Hurd under certain
> > circumsta
> Even though the NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR issue is still being discussed,
> in either way we'll need this patch installed. Any objections?
Ok. But can you please create a PR and attach there all patches that I
approve, but must wait until after your copyright assignment form will
have been pro
Hello!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 10 Oct 2008 10:37:50 +0200, a écrit :
> > Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> > should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> > by u
Joseph S. Myers dixit:
>It's desirable to be able to configure GCC correctly in the presence of
>installed headers and only a dummy libc.so, so as to get a GCC that can be
>used to build the full glibc.
Ah, right, the GNU case. Sorry, I totally did not have that one in mind,
even though I know
Thomas Schwinge, le Fri 10 Oct 2008 10:37:50 +0200, a écrit :
> Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> by using the CPP for doing that. The problem is that CPP has not yet
> been bulit at
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge dixit:
>
> >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> >should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> >by using the CPP for doing that.
>
> Why not just autoconf?
>
> Check
Hello!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:48:02AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge dixit:
> >Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
> >should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
> >by using the CPP for doing that.
>
> Why not
Thomas Schwinge dixit:
>Ideally, IMO, this test (for stack-smashing-protection support in glibc)
>should not be done by grepping through SYSROOT's features.h, but instead
>by using the CPP for doing that.
Why not just autoconf?
Check for the presence of __stack_smash_handler() in libc… or am I m
Hello!
On Wed, Oct 08, 2008 at 11:53:57AM +0200, I wrote:
> First, the check for gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp is not complete, as has
> already pointed out (with patches!) before, but is still not fixed on
> trunk. Let me revisit that: in configure.ac it is being checked for
> ``case "$target" in *-*
Hello!
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:49:06AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Unfortunately, NATIVE_SYSTEM_HEADER_DIR is a Makefile variable (see
> > gcc/config/t-gnu). It is being used only in three places:
> > gcc/config/t-gnu, gcc/config/t-gnu and gcc/config/i386/t-mingw32. What
That list was bo
11 matches
Mail list logo
