Re: Crossed-Native Builds, Toolchain Relocation and MinGW

2006-04-23 Thread Ranjit Mathew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kai Ruottu wrote: > Because all the MinGW target libs already were produced during the step > 1, it should > sound being "reinventing the wheel" to try to reproduce these during the > step 2 > So one uses the 'make all-gcc', and gets only the "GC

Re: C++ man pages?

2006-04-23 Thread Nix
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Joe Buck prattled cheerily: > >> On 20 Apr 2006, Joe Buck moaned: >> > There is online documentation at >> > >> > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/documentation.html >> > >> > It doesn't exist in "man page" form. > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 08:30:01PM +0100, Nix wrot

Re: C++ man pages?

2006-04-23 Thread Joe Buck
> On 20 Apr 2006, Joe Buck moaned: > > There is online documentation at > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/documentation.html > > > > It doesn't exist in "man page" form. On Sun, Apr 23, 2006 at 08:30:01PM +0100, Nix wrote: > Um, what does `make -C your-platform-directory/libstdc++

Re: Crossed-Native Builds, Toolchain Relocation and MinGW

2006-04-23 Thread Kai Ruottu
Ranjit Mathew wrote : It seems that toolchain relocation, especially for crossed-native builds, seems to be broken in mainline while it used to work for earlier releases. The situation seems particularly bad for Windows (MinGW). In this issue was something I didn't understand Let's ass

Re: C++ man pages?

2006-04-23 Thread Nix
On 20 Apr 2006, Joe Buck moaned: > On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:09:16PM -0400, Philip Goetz wrote: >> I know this is such a basic question, but I've been through dozens of >> websites and several FAQs without finding an answer... >> >> Where can I get C++ language man pages for use with gcc? Not th

Re: [RFA] Backporting fold improvements from 4.x to 3.x

2006-04-23 Thread Richard Guenther
On 23 Apr 2006 17:07:44 +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Hi everyone, > | > | I made the following notes while backporting Alan Modra's patch for > PR26026 > | to 3.3 series. > > The 3.3.x series had been closed; I'm not clear

RE: [RFA] Backporting fold improvements from 4.x to 3.x

2006-04-23 Thread Dave Korn
On 23 April 2006 16:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > "Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I made the following notes while backporting Alan Modra's patch for >> PR26026 to 3.3 series. > > The 3.3.x series had been closed; I'm not clear what you mean by backport. >

Re: [RFA] Backporting fold improvements from 4.x to 3.x

2006-04-23 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
"Dave Korn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Hi everyone, | | I made the following notes while backporting Alan Modra's patch for PR26026 | to 3.3 series. The 3.3.x series had been closed; I'm not clear what you mean by backport. -- Gaby