On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 01:18:54PM +0200, Daniel Diaz wrote:
>Hi Christopher,
>
>have you integrated the --disable option for --large-address-aware in
>binutils ?
There hasn't been a new release of binutils since that message, no.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FA
Hi Christopher,
have you integrated the --disable option for --large-address-aware in
binutils ?
Daniel
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:01:03 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:48:27PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
On 4/14/2012 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
You're right that
Christopher Faylor cygwin.com> writes:
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:48:27PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> >On 4/14/2012 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> You're right that there isn't a way to disable --large-address-aware
> >> but, since it's part of the specs, I'm not sure what would take
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:48:27PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>On 4/14/2012 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> You're right that there isn't a way to disable --large-address-aware
>> but, since it's part of the specs, I'm not sure what would take
>> precedence if there was a --disable* option.
>>
>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:52:46PM -0400, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:21:25PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> For testin
On 4/14/2012 1:52 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:21:25PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
For testing purposes, I'd like to build wi
On 4/14/2012 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:21:25PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
What's the right wa
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:21:25PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>>On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
>>>
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:21:25PM -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
>On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
>>> What's the right way to do that? I tried
>>>
>>>LDFLAGS=
On 4/14/2012 12:37 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
What's the right way to do that? I tried
LDFLAGS=-Wl,--no-large-address-aware
and
LDFLAGS=-Wl,--disable-large-address-a
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
> What's the right way to do that? I tried
>
> LDFLAGS=-Wl,--no-large-address-aware
>
> and
>
> LDFLAGS=-Wl,--disable-large-address-aware
>
> but both resulted in "unre
For testing purposes, I'd like to build without large-address awareness.
What's the right way to do that? I tried
LDFLAGS=-Wl,--no-large-address-aware
and
LDFLAGS=-Wl,--disable-large-address-aware
but both resulted in "unrecognized option" errors from ld.
Ken
--
Problem reports:
12 matches
Mail list logo
