Is somebody working the osx issues with the latest git gdc + gcc4.8? I
muddled through a few druntime compile and link problems (related to
rt/memory_osx.d - noted by previous posters) and am able to compile -n-
run a couple test programs. But since the areas in question deal with
TLS, EH, and GC
Shouldn't the tool posting changes in issues to the news group
check if there is an existing topic to append to ?
--
Marco
On 11/05/2012 08:29 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Once pulled in, how do I go about running the unittests on all code (DFE,
druntime, phobos) as part of the build process? (Something worth adding to GDC
wiki perhaps?)
Whoops, there I go jumping ahead of myself:
http://www.gdcproject.org/
On 5 November 2012 19:29, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 05:35 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> You could try taking the patch from the 2.060 merge on trunk and
>> applying it... other than that I don't plan on making any major
>> changes to the 4.7 branch other than bug fixing (someon
On 11/05/2012 05:35 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
You could try taking the patch from the 2.060 merge on trunk and
applying it... other than that I don't plan on making any major
changes to the 4.7 branch other than bug fixing (someone can feel free
to send backpatches from 2.060 if there's any big bloc
On 11/05/2012 07:15 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
On 5 November 2012 18:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
If we somehow manage to get 2.060 working for the 4.7 branch, would you
take a pull request? ;-)
I know you're focusing on 4.8, but I'm still unable to get it to build
correctly, whereas the 4.7 branch works
On 5 November 2012 18:04, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:40:36PM +, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>> On 5 November 2012 16:10, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>> wrote:
> [...]
>> > Is there a particular reason not to allow the frontend, druntime and
>> > phobos to be git submodules which could
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:40:36PM +, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 5 November 2012 16:10, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> wrote:
[...]
> > Is there a particular reason not to allow the frontend, druntime and
> > phobos to be git submodules which could be kept up to date with
> > upstream in a more 'live'
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 04:27:52PM +0100, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
[...]
> Ahhh, I'd forgotten about --disable-bootstrap: adding that to the
> configure instructions seems to solve all the problems. I've now
> successfully built and installed GDC 4.7, and the -j option does not
> disturb the
On 5 November 2012 16:20, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 04:39 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>
>> ... but no "make uninstall" option? Is there an advised way of cleaning
>> out a
>> source install of GDC?
>
>
> Is there a recommended .conf file or similar for installs to /op
On 5 November 2012 16:10, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 05:53 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> Ah, now I remember why I hated the 2.060 merge... so many changes ... :o)
>
>
> Sorry to bring back the trauma :-P
>
> Is there a particular reason not to allow the frontend, druntime and ph
On 11/05/2012 04:39 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
... but no "make uninstall" option? Is there an advised way of cleaning out a
source install of GDC?
Is there a recommended .conf file or similar for installs to /opt/gdc, to ensure
the system picks up the executable, libraries and includ
On 11/05/2012 05:53 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
Ah, now I remember why I hated the 2.060 merge... so many changes ... :o)
Sorry to bring back the trauma :-P
Is there a particular reason not to allow the frontend, druntime and phobos to
be git submodules which could be kept up to date with upstream
On 5 November 2012 15:46, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 11/05/2012 05:35 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>
>> You could try taking the patch from the 2.060 merge on trunk and
>> applying it... other than that I don't plan on making any major
>> changes to the 4.7 branch other than bug fixing (someon
On 11/05/2012 05:35 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
You could try taking the patch from the 2.060 merge on trunk and
applying it... other than that I don't plan on making any major
changes to the 4.7 branch other than bug fixing (someone can feel free
to send backpatches from 2.060 if there's any big bloc
On 11/05/2012 04:27 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Thanks so much to everyone for all the advice and patience in helping me get a
successful build.
... but no "make uninstall" option? Is there an advised way of cleaning out a
source install of GDC?
On 5 November 2012 15:30, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Having just successfully build GDC 4.7, I noticed that it still contains
> only frontend/phobos 2.059.
>
> Is there any chance of seeing 2.060 merged in? One of the main reasons for
> building from source was to gain certai
Hello all,
Having just successfully build GDC 4.7, I noticed that it still contains only
frontend/phobos 2.059.
Is there any chance of seeing 2.060 merged in? One of the main reasons for
building from source was to gain certain bugfixes and improved functionality
(including code that I wrot
On 11/05/2012 04:13 PM, Timo Sintonen wrote:
I do not kmow anout the error messages but here are some tips I have found.
The version of gcc installed in the system should be same or very close to the
source code. So install the newest package available.
I'm using the exact sources of GCC from
On Monday, 5 November 2012 at 10:33:40 UTC, Joseph Rushton
Wakeling wrote:
This is configured with
../gcc-4.7-4.7.2/src/configure --enable-languages=d
--disable-multilib --disable-libgomp --disable-libmudflap
--disable-libquadmath --disable-libquadmath-support
--disable-lto --disable-nls
On Saturday, 27 October 2012 at 03:45:04 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Can you include the compile/link command line right before
these errors?
That might help trace the problem. Right now it's just clear
that the ld
isn't being called with the right files (either that, or
something that
needed to be
21 matches
Mail list logo
