On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Roar Thronæs wrote:
I have started working on moving the frontend from 3.4.3 to 4.1.1.
If you want to contribute it here, I'd skip 4.1.1 and just do 4.2.
By the time you'd be done, 4.2 would be out. Plus, if you need any
fixes in the compiler, you stand a high
> Yes, that's clever. But, you can create a symbolic link to the
> sysroot from each installation with a single command. And, your
> installer for third-party developers can do that for you.
Beware - the linker expands symlinks to determine if a library comes
from the sysroot or not. It affect
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I think that in stage 1, we should switch to not searching any of the
| configured paths in favor of the relocated paths. Carlos has been
| working on patches for this. I'm sure it will break a few
| unexpected configurations. When it does,
Currently in config/i386/cygming.h we have this:
#undef DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER
#define DBX_REGISTER_NUMBER(n) (write_symbols == DWARF2_DEBUG \
? svr4_dbx_register_map[n] \
: dbx_register_map[n])
This is fine as long as we assume
Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> > "Me too."
>
> Except now you have suggested that we change the current behavior
> which you already suggested at the GCC summit we should not do at
> least not for a couple of release for warn
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 4:59 AM
>
> Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> >
> >> We currently search both the relocated compilers prefix and the
> >> originally configured prefix. Should a relocated compiler be
> >> searc
On Sunday 23 July 2006 19:40, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > Before Vista, there's no solution short of "cp". However, you still
> > have the --sysroot command-line option. And, if you're worried about
> > Windows, see Paul's response; the problems I've described are
> > particularly bad on Windows, an
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting that we ship software that performs poorly on one of
>> the most popular systems actually in the field because, in the abstract,
>> those systems could be better?
>
> Maybe we just have to forc
On Jul 23, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Are you suggesting that we ship software that performs poorly on
one of
the most popular systems actually in the field because, in the
abstract,
those systems could be better?
Maybe we just have to force the issue on people. As I mentio
On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 11:40:38AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >Before Vista, there's no solution short of "cp". However, you still
> >have the --sysroot command-line option. And, if you're worried about
> >Windows, see Paul's response; the problems I've described are
> >particularly bad on Win
On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Me too."
Except now you have suggested that we change the current behavior
which you already suggested at the GCC summit we should not do at
least not for a couple of release for warning people. You cannot
have it both ways, people alrea
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>> Before Vista, there's no solution short of "cp". However, you still
>> have the --sysroot command-line option. And, if you're worried about
>> Windows, see Paul's response; the problems I've described are
>> particularly bad on Windows, and the developer-base there is ofte
Before Vista, there's no solution short of "cp". However, you still
have the --sysroot command-line option. And, if you're worried about
Windows, see Paul's response; the problems I've described are
particularly bad on Windows, and the developer-base there is often
less
used to GNU software,
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>
>> Yes, that's clever. But, you can create a symbolic link to the sysroot
>> from each installation with a single command. And, your installer for
>> third-party developers can do that for you.
>
> What are the equivalent to symbolic links on Windows and I am not
> talkin
> > (1b) If the configure-time prefix does not exist, but is under an NFS
> > mount, the compiler will cause automount traffic, NFS timeouts, etc.
>...
> > However, I think it's clear that the problems in (1) are more severe
> > than the problems in (2), on several grounds:
>
> I actually think the
Yes, that's clever. But, you can create a symbolic link to the
sysroot
from each installation with a single command. And, your installer for
third-party developers can do that for you.
What are the equivalent to symbolic links on Windows and I am not
talking about
cygwin either?
Thanks
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I actually think the problems with 1 (b) are artificial and should not
> be taken into account.
This is not a hypothetical or artificial issue -- as I said, all three
problems I listed have been encountered by real users.
> I actually depend on a common sysroot already
>
On Jul 23, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
However, I think it's clear that the problems in (1) are more severe
than the problems in (2), on several grounds:
"Me too."
I actually think the problems with 1 (b) are artificial and should not
be taken into account. I actually depend
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. If we search both locations (i.e., for a relocated compiler, search
> the configured-time prefix and the installation-time prefix), we get the
> following set of problems:
...
> 2. If we search only location (i.e., for a relocated compiler, search
>
Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> We currently search both the relocated compilers prefix and the
>> originally configured prefix. Should a relocated compiler be searching
>> both directories?
>
> Yes because someone might have just relocated the c
On 7/23/06, Abid Ghufran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am using send and receive for this purpose. How can i manage the
send(ing) and receive(ing) of the primary and the secondary structure?
This is the wrong place to ask. We discuss the development of gcc on this list.
Gr.
Steven
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 01:28:34AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Roar Thronæs wrote:
>
> >But it seems EXIT_BLOCK_EXPR and LABELED_BLOCK_EXPR have been moved
> >to java, since no one else was using it.
> >
> >Would it be possible to move that code back, please?
>
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006, Andrew Haley wrote:
Roar Thronæs writes:
>
> I have started working on moving the frontend from 3.4.3 to 4.1.1.
> But it seems EXIT_BLOCK_EXPR and LABELED_BLOCK_EXPR have been moved
> to java, since no one else was using it.
>
> Would it be possible to move that code back, p
I am working on an application over fedora using c language and
sockets (TCP). I have to send a structure which contains a pointer to
another strcuture. Now what happens is that when the primary structure
(containing the pointer) gets sent, instead of the secondary structure
(pointed to) being sen
24 matches
Mail list logo
