On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:58:44PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
Hi,
>I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my
> conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32
> should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status
> of arm, hurd-i386, m
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 02:58:44PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my
> conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32
> should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status
> of arm, hurd-i386, m68k, m
Matthias,
I'm not sure. I know I was told that hppa was okay. Also from my
conversations with Jakub it appears i386, ia-64, alpha and sparc32
should be fine. So I would suggest we focus on checking the status
of arm, hurd-i386, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390 and sh. I'm not sure
how many of those arch
On Saturday 12 October 2002 19:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Jack Howarth writes:
> > Hi,
> >I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should
> > all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2
> > as its default compiler will need to address the following
> > issue. The libgcc
Jack Howarth writes:
> Hi,
>I am not filing a bug on this right now, but you should
> all be aware that any arch that wants to switch to gcc 3.2
> as its default compiler will need to address the following
> issue. The libgcc symbols starting in gcc 3.1 are now .hidden
> which means breakage of
Actually Jakub sent me the following e-mail just
a few moments ago...
--
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 08:28:18AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Jakub,
>Can I assume you actually checked all the other
> arches that redhat has shipped a linux for
Jack Howarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is unclear how many arches have been checked at this point other
> than ia64 and ppc; I am assuming i386 must be okay.
It's an issue on i386 as well.
Regards,
Martin
7 matches
Mail list logo
