On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:57:42PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I corrected this.
>
> Thanks, but you did the same thing with the following:
How should correct ChangeLog entries for those look like?
> * Makerules.in: Set no_deps to true if we don't need the dependency
> files.
#v+
--- M
On 2/3/06, Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I checked in the following:
>
> 2006-02-03 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makerules.in: Add -fno-strict-aliasing to CFLAGS.
> * i386/linux/Makefile.in: Likewise for linux-gen-flags.
>
>
> Please confirm this is eno
I corrected this.
Thanks, but you did the same thing with the following:
* Makerules.in: Set no_deps to true if we don't need the dependency
files.
* i386/linux/Makefile.in: Do care about linux-flags if no_deps is true;
reverting the change from 2006-01-31.
__
"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>2006-02-03 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makerules.in: Add -fno-strict-aliasing to CFLAGS.
> * i386/linux/Makefile.in: Likewise for linux-gen-flags.
>
> The correct format is:
>
>* Makerules.in (CFLAGS): Added
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 08:05:23PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>2006-02-03 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * Makerules.in: Add -fno-strict-aliasing to CFLAGS.
> * i386/linux/Makefile.in: Likewise for linux-gen-flags.
>
> The correct format is:
>
>* Makerule
2006-02-03 Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makerules.in: Add -fno-strict-aliasing to CFLAGS.
* i386/linux/Makefile.in: Likewise for linux-gen-flags.
The correct format is:
* Makerules.in (CFLAGS): Added -fno-strict-aliasing.
* i386/linux/Makefile.in (linux-
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 05:06:26PM +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> Among lot of warning, while compiling GNU Mach with recent gcc's we
> get lot of warnings related to strict aliasing optimization. This
> might lead the compiler into producing incorrect code.
>
> I personally think that instead of
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 17:06 +0100, Gianluca Guida wrote:
> Among lot of warning, while compiling GNU Mach with recent gcc's we
> get lot of warnings related to strict aliasing optimization. This
> might lead the compiler into producing incorrect code.
>
> I personally think that instead of modifyi
