On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Well, we _were_ fine. Then amodra fixed a bug this morning (quote):
>
> I've checked in a new file to pehc glibc CVS, merge_GLIBC_CVS_20010424
> branch. If anyone wants to try it,
>
> ** YOU'LL NEED NEW BINUTILS **
>
> from any of the usual CVS re
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:09:29PM -0400, Christopher C. Chimelis wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how is binutils doing on hppa? I'm trying to look out
> for patches that would be needed (thank goodness IA64 hasn't hounded me
> lately...they've had TONS of patches :-P).
Well, we _were_ fine. Then amo
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > In addition to needing hppa gcc debs I also need to do hppa64 cross
> compiler
> > debs(mostly for building 64bit kernels). I am hoping to use the GCC_TARGET
> > environment variable thing in the 3.0 package but haven't started working
> on
>
Matt Taggart writes:
> > > 2.) Do a general gcc-3.1 based on the upstream 3.1 branch. Teach
> > > gcc-defaults to use 3.1 for hppa.
> > minor
>
> You're saying the gcc-defaults work is minor or the gcc-3.1 package?
modifying the defaults work.
> > Assuming that 3.0 stabilizes in the near
Matthias Klose writes...
> for my understanding: these are backports of the hppa 3.1 checkins to
> 3.0, or complete diffs from 3.0 to 3.1 including the hppa patches?
The hppa CVS tree is still based on the 3.0 branch. When the changes were
submitted upstream it was to late for them go into 3.0
5 matches
Mail list logo
