From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 11:25:43 +0200
> thanks for the update, tested with the 4.3 branch 20080509 with no
> regressions.
Thanks for testing, I've checked the bug fix into mainline.
> could this patch be considered for the 4.3 branch as
> well?
I'm perso
David Miller writes:
> From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:33:23 +0200
>
> > Building GCC-4.3 with this patch (compared to the patch previously
> > used by debian [1]), I get differing symbol versions for the Debian build
> > on sparc in libgcc1. Both builds are co
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:33:23 +0200
> Building GCC-4.3 with this patch (compared to the patch previously
> used by debian [1]), I get differing symbol versions for the Debian build
> on sparc in libgcc1. Both builds are configured --with-long-double-128.
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 13:33:23 +0200
> Building GCC-4.3 with this patch (compared to the patch previously
> used by debian [1]), I get differing symbol versions for the Debian build
> on sparc in libgcc1. Both builds are configured --with-long-double-128.
David Miller writes:
>
> This patch rolls up some issues with sparc*-*-linux* configurations
> I've wanted to cure for years. The biggest two problems were:
>
> 1) Lack of use of config/linux.h, resulting in chronic problems
>because config/sparc/linux{,64}.h was not updated or updated
>
This patch rolls up some issues with sparc*-*-linux* configurations
I've wanted to cure for years. The biggest two problems were:
1) Lack of use of config/linux.h, resulting in chronic problems
because config/sparc/linux{,64}.h was not updated or updated
incorrectly.
2) Distributions patc
6 matches
Mail list logo
