On 15/8/19 4:10 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> - Am 15. Aug 2019 um 0:43 schrieb Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org:
>
>> On 14/8/19 5:38 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2019 09:25, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/08/2019 09:09, Chris Johns wrote:
> On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Hub
- Am 15. Aug 2019 um 0:43 schrieb Chris Johns chr...@rtems.org:
> On 14/8/19 5:38 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 14/08/2019 09:25, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14/08/2019 09:09, Chris Johns wrote:
On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wro
On 14/8/19 5:38 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 14/08/2019 09:25, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>> On 14/08/2019 09:09, Chris Johns wrote:
>>> On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On ARM a breaking change in compiler options is necessary.
On 14/08/2019 09:25, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/08/2019 09:09, Chris Johns wrote:
On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On ARM a breaking change in compiler options is necessary.
What options are these?
ARM changed the FPU options in GCC 8 and
On 14/08/2019 09:09, Chris Johns wrote:
On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On ARM a breaking change in compiler options is necessary.
What options are these?
ARM changed the FPU options in GCC 8 and later.
Also this seems back to front to me
On 14/8/19 4:52 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wrote:
> On ARM a breaking change in compiler options is necessary.
What options are these?
>>> ARM changed the FPU options in GCC 8 and later.
>>>
Also this seems back to front to me. Should all hosts be on
On 14/08/2019 08:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On ARM a breaking change in compiler options is necessary.
What options are these?
ARM changed the FPU options in GCC 8 and later.
Also this seems back to front to me. Should all hosts be on 9.2.0 and those that
cannot have specific versions?
Only Powe
On 14/8/19 3:02 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 14/08/2019 01:52, Chris Johns wrote:
>> On 13/8/19 3:02 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>>
>>> the patch just changed GCC 9.1 to 9.2 on all targets which use GCC 9, these
>>> are
>>> or1k, riscv, and x86_64.
>>
>> The change as broken MacOS due to this bu
On 14/08/2019 01:52, Chris Johns wrote:
On 13/8/19 3:02 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
the patch just changed GCC 9.1 to 9.2 on all targets which use GCC 9, these are
or1k, riscv, and x86_64.
The change as broken MacOS due to this bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
I p
On 13/8/19 3:02 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> the patch just changed GCC 9.1 to 9.2 on all targets which use GCC 9, these
> are
> or1k, riscv, and x86_64.
The change as broken MacOS due to this bug ...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81797
I posted build results showing the error i
Hello Chris,
the patch just changed GCC 9.1 to 9.2 on all targets which use GCC 9,
these are or1k, riscv, and x86_64.
Since there will be probably no RTEMS 5 in the near future, maybe we
should move to GCC 9.2 in general.
If we do this on PowerPC, then the SPE is no longer supported. On AR
Hi,
I am not sure what the difference between these versions of gcc are? The hash
based version is the default while 9.2.0 is used on or1k, riscv, and x86_64.
Thanks
Chris
___
devel mailing list
devel@rtems.org
http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/de
12 matches
Mail list logo
