On Sat, Sep 14, 2002 at 12:25:55AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>
> Assuming that NetBSD maintainers had been using a modified GCC all
> along, it appears that gcc, on NetBSD, had never defined unix (that
> FSF GCC defines it for m68k does not matter - it just means that Jason
> Thorpe hasn't up
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not sure at all why it would define 'unix' on m68k and not i386...
Unfortunately, the gcc public CVS does not answer this question: it
goes back only to 11-Aug-97, at which time m68k/netbsd.h was created
(in the then-egcs CVS); in that version, it reads
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 09:19:30AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Next stupid question: which standard covers 'unix', so that I can make sure
> > all the pieces are met and that I'm not about to force GCC to tell a lie
> > that will come back to haunt
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 10:17:04AM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings! I think I may have stumbled on a possible explanation for
> gcl's build failure on hppa. Hppa alone will not relocate (i.e. allow
> dlopen to open) modules not compiled with -fPIC. All other
> architectures on which dlope
Greetings! I think I may have stumbled on a possible explanation for
gcl's build failure on hppa. Hppa alone will not relocate (i.e. allow
dlopen to open) modules not compiled with -fPIC. All other
architectures on which dlopen is currently used (alpha, ia64, mips,
mipsel) follow the original Su
5 matches
Mail list logo
